True. It was an overly broad generalization on my part. (though I frankly consider most Postmodernist to be nihilists who are in denial... no pun intended =) I do wonder what Rorty would make of all this, whether he would consider it possible for computer science to be a postmodern discipline, or simply group it with maths and treat it as such.
Hehe, yeah, we probably are talking at cross purposes. (But its an enjoyable discussion none the less =)
You're right, Postmoderinism does attempt to destroy context. (The over ridding theme of Postmodernism could be said to be that all ideas are equally invalid.) However this posses a problem in practice because ultimately you *can't* really destroy something without relying on something else. You can't smash a tea cup without a hammer, you can't denounce the acts of a murderer without morals (whether based socially, ontologically or religiously). In other words when you destroy in such a manner you are making a de-facto statement that one system is to be more valued than another. Something that Postmodernism fundamentally rejects.
To get around this, one must judge/destroy systems in their own context. A system must destroyed by its own words, either through it's hypocrisy or through a fundamental failure to meet its own goals. The emperor need be pointed out that he has no clothes.
If one fails to do this, all they can succeed at is to spout off about how only relativism is the only Truth and everyone else is wrong... which in itself is a relative statement and has no foundation in which to attack any other system...course all this is just theory and has little to do with computers. As you're completely right, a computer scientist does not need to shackle his methods and modes of thinking to True/False gates. But there is still ultimately a thread of connection, a universal truth (however vague) that all computer scientists need share, and it's founded within that On/Off switch and the nature of mathematics and algorithms. It is this underlying thread that is the very antithesis of Postmodernism, that there *are* certain underlying universal truths. (I think perhaps Postmodernism might have been heading in such a direction in the beginning. To try and tear down the walls in thought and culture in an attempt to reach a understanding, and a underlying connection between them all.. but what it seems to have become is an outright denial of even the possibility of a connection and that all there is are view points.)
As a side note, I think that is an absolutely intriguing idea of yours. Questioning whether a Computer scientist's choice of programing style/language reflects how he views the world.
" post modernism is not the butchering of the language that you attribute to undergraduate papers. post modernism is rather a way of looking at the world that says, "there is no one way of looking at things. shades of grey exist. there are in-between stages to life." "
Post modernism, however, as far as a philosophy itself goes one step further saying that all there *is* are in between stages of life and that the only shade *is* grey. Modern Post modernism (I can't believe I'm actually saying that) as advocated by Richard Rorty and his cohorts says that in the world there is no such thing as True/False. There's a reason Post modernism is so closely linked with deconstructionism, as anything that makes a claim outside its context must by default be wrong. The only method of criticism in Post modernism is to criticize within the context of the system/culture. In culture this means you can't say circumcising women in other countries is wrong, nor can you say we have a right to interfere in another's war.
I don't have a problem with the general cultural movement of Post modernism, as applied to computer science (to say that there isn't always one way of doing things and that one should judge each language way of programing on its own merits rather than in comparative to another) But Post modernism ultimately can not be applied to CS in it's most profound sense, because CS at its base level ultimately requires *one* way of doing things, you have either a 1 or a 0. CS is ultimately already holistic and is unified through it's root language: math. You can't get any more objective than that.
I still find it laughable that a great deal of Postmoderinism arose due to the problems of human linguistics and how they are ultimatly subjective, while "computer linguistics" is essentialy based in mathamatics and you can't get more objective than that.
Frankly, the absence of a value system and a "Grand Narrative" (see "No Big Picture" 7) in approaching programing is a rather dangerous mindset and can seriously lead to sloppy programing. While I'll agree that it's nice to say in principle that C++ isn't better than C# which isn't better than Java which isn't better than Qbasic, and that there's no "wrong" way to write code, in practice I'd say it's far easier and more efficient to act as though there was a Grand Narrative, and that ASM is far better for writing faster base level routines than Pascal is.
While I admit I have yet to read the whole article (I'll get to it) my first impression is that succeeds at failing where so many other "Postmodern" calls have done before. Which is to say it inadvertently deconstructs itself (one contradicts themselves when they say "there is no right way to do things" as this in itself proscribes a "right" action [to treat all ways equal])
At a more fundamental level I have a hard time accepting "Postmodernism" next to "Programing" as the former is a system stating there is no such thing as a Truth statement and the latter, at it's very core, is based on truth statements. (Yes, yes, I know there is a rather big difference between Truth and a truth, esp. when truth is meant as an on/off switch, but it still quirks me regardless =)
Frankly I'm not sure what I believe, or what "theories" have greater validity or not. Though I am inclined to agree with your conclusions (that it is unlikely to find a signal from a developing civilization)
I do think however is that we (as people) tend to over generalize theories and often treat ideas (much as you said) as religions. We feel a great encompassing grand unified theory is somehow more appeasing than chaos. So we seek purpose in the universe, even should that purpose merely be an ordered cause and effect.
Unfortunately I'm inclined to believe this kind of thinking leads to many slippery slopes. In this particular instance, explaining the whole arising of human civilization as a natural product of evolutionary terms. I'm not so certian this is the case (though I'd like to see theories [with supporting evidence of course] on it) certainly evolution could be said to have gotten the ball rolling and given us an opportunity to create a species able to developed a civilization, but what, I wonder are the probabilities of that happening?
Until we have another sampling, a different evolutionary chain to compare to, saying that a "civilization" is a natural (that is to say a probable) product of evolution is as faulty as rolling an infinitely sided dice and saying the number it lands on it is always likely to land on.
Only if we can show that evolution does not have an infinite possibility for creations and traits, can we really say there is likely another civilization somewhere. And sampling of one, just ain't going to cut it.
One of the best sites to keep yourself informed. This gives you the good and the bad.
Sites like the EFF, ACLU, RIAA and MPAA are good for getting differnt view points, but their information will always be slanted in one way or another. That's what lobying groups do.
In arguments it's good to know both sides of an issue but it's even better to look at the issue itself somtimes.
If the methods used were the same as those from the last survey: http://www.antivirus-china.org.cn/
Then the results are highly questionable. As it was an online survey. Without knowing the methods for all we know it could have been a website poll... and considering it's the National Computer Virus Emergency Response Center doing the survey then individuals completing the survey are probably more likely to be affiliated with such a site because they've *had* a virus.
Does any one actually read Chinese so they could give us the full story? The site's homepage is here: http://www.antivirus-china.org.cn/
"Regarding the unabomber. Is there any evidence to suggest that technique was employed in that case (I don't think so) ? How do you know if this might not have been effective there ? "
Just a thought you raised. I wonder how fesiable it would be to test such programs on solved crimes....that's a really intreiguing concept to me. I'll have to go see if I can find anything on it..
Drat, now look what you made me do. Got me all interested in a topic when I was just about to sit down and re-read theif of time. =]
"Judging by the results that this technique has yielded so far, I'd say the results are very impressive, especially given than the Mr. Rossmo takes great pains to point out the limitations and that the software is only truly effective as one part of the array of methods being used in such cases."
That is irrelevant as to whether it is effective in this case. I'm not saying it is, I'm not saying it isn't. That is yet to be determined.
"It is apparent from your comment that you have a poor understanding of the large and frightening scope of mental illness. Being mentally ill does not necessarily make the victim totally irrational. Consequently, it is not at all surprising that such a technique might well be effective. If your illness is so debilitating that you effectively behave "randomly", I submit that you would not long evade capture."
Mental Illness has nothing to do with these shootings until there is evidence to the contrary. Completely rational people are capable of atrocities.
And again I am not saying that a killer such as the one being pursued is random. I'm saying that the baseline predictions are not necessarily reliable if the subject is an anomaly to those criteria. In other words, probably everyone is predictable in one form or another, but you can't always know what that form is.
This is not a criticism of the software. This is a criticism of putting all your eggs in one basket. (Or perhaps more apt, all your cpu cycles on one process.)
"Regarding the unabomber. Is there any evidence to suggest that technique was employed in that case (I don't think so) ? How do you know if this might not have been effective there ? "
I don't know. And I didn't say it wouldn't. I was saying the FBI had other software and reliable methods which in the end, were not what caught him.
I haven't looked at the program, but I'm not sure how well it would work esp. given his wide trail.
(Eg, here's 1985 bombings attributed to him)
1985 - Berkeley, CA 1985 - Auburn, WA 1985 - Ann Arbor, MI 1985 - Sacramento, CA
When one has already shown them self to be a anomaly how effective is any given method of prediction/profiling?
Let's face it, you don't go killing people as a habit. Any results from a given "profile" are not the best answer, they are merely a suggested solution to a given set of criteria, some of which we've yet to know. If the person meets the criteria of a given profile, then yes, they are more likely to be in X place or be X person.
But we *must* keep in mind people can do other than what they would be expected to, even if we know nearly everything about them. And if they've already broken the social and moral bounds of killing their fellow man, seemingly without cause I'd say then that they are even less likely to fit a given profile.
True, they are likely to meet some criteria and be "standardized" in that aspect, but we can never know which criteria are the ones that fit their profile. With that said we can *never* rely on just one method for a single case. We need to use many methods, often contradictory, in the hopes that one of those profiles is the correct one. In this kind of case over confidence in our methods literally becomes a killer.
*shrug* look at people like the Uni-Bomber. If I recall correctly, the only reason he was eventually found was because his brother turned him in after recognizing his style of witting reading the manifesto.
Sorry if this isn't more eloquent. This case is actually pretty close to home for me (both geographically speaking and emotionally.) People who go out of their way to try and kill children... I really want this person gone.
I'm arguing the definition of publicly available (a term you used.) If something is not made available to the entirety of the public, how can it be considered publicly available?"
They're differnt because you're aruging from your own definition standpoint. I'm aruging from the legal one.
The goverment qualifies what is to be considered "publicly available".
We can argue indefinitatly about the validity of the goverment's definition, but it doesn't change the definition.
"If there's any argument to be made under the ADA, it's that computer makers like Dell and Gateway (and by extension, Microsoft) are not offering an equal product to the blind."
Don't you mean the poor?
"But as long as a service requires that you meet some qualification, it isn't public...and it's not right to value one qualification (being blind) over another one (not being able to afford a computer.)"
Why isn't it right to value one qualification over another? You can generaly help yourself from being poor. You can't generaly help yourself from being blind.
"Yea, but this kind of crap gets us into all kinds of trouble. It's like when your clients says "can you do this?" on a piece of software. "anything" is possible. But many things consume inordinate amounts of resources for very little gain. This bleeding heart, everyone should be made equal stuff is a pipedream. If a corporation wants to make accomodations for various physical (or mental) handicaps, then they should. If they decide not to, let the public boycot them, not the government mandate it. Because just about anything IS possible. But we live in a world of "majorities". As you can see, once we start thinking every little so-called handicap should be accomodated for it spirals into people filing lawsuits because company X doesnt make a version of their bow & arrow for people with no arms. Get over it. "
The ADA has been around for more than 10 years and nearly all of the changes made have required minimal effort. Most of what you're aruging is a sliperly slope unless you can provide concrete examples of how much trouble the ADA has caused us.
When I say publicly provided service, I mean a services provided to anyone in the public, (it can be provided by a private firm).
Publicy provided services and public publicy provided services.
My bad, on the poor word choice.
---
The suit has basis under the ADA.
Though you raise a valid point. If the services the website provides can be accessed over the phone, then the suit might not be valid. However, if there are services on the website that aren't accessable over the phone there is little doubt in my mind that the website isn't compliant with the ADA.
If you're curious about the ADA and how it effects the net here's a good paper:
http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/saad/cs370/paper/ le gal_final.html
"Does this mean I am going to go out and sue all glove makers because they don't make a right hand glove with no thumb? No. That is plain stupid."
Yes, that would be plain stupid. It would also be irrelevant to the topic at hand.
A person with a disability in our nation has a right to access public and publicly provided services under the ADA.
This is about preventing someone from making use out of a given service, a service mind you that they are fully capable of receiving, because of their disability.
Your example is incorrect. You can still wear and purchase the glove. If however (entirely hypothetical situation) the glove makers required that you give a thumb print before the purchase then there would be grounds to sue.
"The term disability means, acording to Dictionary.com [dictionary.com] 2. A disadvantage or deficiency,... 3. Something that hinders or incapacitates. Why can we not accept that there are things that we cannot do and not sue others while pretending it is someone else's fault that we have a disability. "
Again. We do accept there are things that some can't do. What we don't accept is that there are things that someone *could* do, but isn't able to gain access to because the service is provided in a way that hampers on their disability.
"Are these (the ADA) the people that made it so that there is Brail on Drive up ATM machines?"
No. I suspect that the banks likely did that. As the component parts for one ATM fits for another (and other parts too), and its cheaper to just make one key set for all ATMs, than it is to make one for the blind, and one for everyone else.
For the record I know of one person who uses a local ATM and happens to also be blind.
The BBC is reporting that the Judge said the DMCA is ambiguous. This is not a ruling and hasn't set a precedent.
It's typical of the media to blow things out of proportion. And this happens to be one of those things.
Either way, what's really important here is whether or not the RIAA can demand a given user's name, phone number from an ISP *without* any form of a warrant or any form of legal proceeding.
This is something that not even the US government was allowed to do until recent legislation. (The patriot act tends to make things more ambiguous now, and the government can away with a lot more than before, but not as much as the RIAA wants.)
And don't look at that ambiguity as something necessarily good. It could be the nail in the coffin that lets the RIAA and others get away with such reprehensible violations of civil liberty if the courts eventually set the wrong precedents.
While being forced to pay a monitary sum is often a harsh punishment, I frankly am tired of seeing it applied to compaines.
It would be much more productive, and effective, I think to force compaines to do public service work as part of their reperations. (Much like many indivudals are forced to do comunity service work.)
In this particular case, for instance, they would make reperations to the students by prehaps getting their names off all credit and other "junk" lists, further they'd be required to do a form of "comerical" community service such as being made to work towards protecting consumer privacy.
In situations like this, monatary fines don't really seem to make a dent in the problem. When certian rights, like privacy are violated by a company it should be made not just to pay, but to help foster a protection of those rights.
Course, that's just my thoughts. Not that I'd expect to see such a thing happen all that often. (If ever)
Slashdot Mirror
True. It was an overly broad generalization on my part. (though I frankly consider most Postmodernist to be nihilists who are in denial... no pun intended =)
I do wonder what Rorty would make of all this, whether he would consider it possible for computer science to be a postmodern discipline, or simply group it with maths and treat it as such.
Hehe, yeah, we probably are talking at cross purposes. (But its an enjoyable discussion none the less =)
..course all this is just theory and has little to do with computers. As you're completely right, a computer scientist does not need to shackle his methods and modes of thinking to True/False gates. But there is still ultimately a thread of connection, a universal truth (however vague) that all computer scientists need share, and it's founded within that On/Off switch and the nature of mathematics and algorithms.
You're right, Postmoderinism does attempt to destroy context. (The over ridding theme of Postmodernism could be said to be that all ideas are equally invalid.)
However this posses a problem in practice because ultimately you *can't* really destroy something without relying on something else. You can't smash a tea cup without a hammer, you can't denounce the acts of a murderer without morals (whether based socially, ontologically or religiously). In other words when you destroy in such a manner you are making a de-facto statement that one system is to be more valued than another. Something that Postmodernism fundamentally rejects.
To get around this, one must judge/destroy systems in their own context. A system must destroyed by its own words, either through it's hypocrisy or through a fundamental failure to meet its own goals. The emperor need be pointed out that he has no clothes.
If one fails to do this, all they can succeed at is to spout off about how only relativism is the only Truth and everyone else is wrong... which in itself is a relative statement and has no foundation in which to attack any other system.
It is this underlying thread that is the very antithesis of Postmodernism, that there *are* certain underlying universal truths. (I think perhaps Postmodernism might have been heading in such a direction in the beginning. To try and tear down the walls in thought and culture in an attempt to reach a understanding, and a underlying connection between them all.. but what it seems to have become is an outright denial of even the possibility of a connection and that all there is are view points.)
As a side note, I think that is an absolutely intriguing idea of yours. Questioning whether a Computer scientist's choice of programing style/language reflects how he views the world.
" post modernism is not the butchering of the language that you attribute to undergraduate papers. post modernism is rather a way of looking at the world that says, "there is no one way of looking at things. shades of grey exist. there are in-between stages to life." "
Post modernism, however, as far as a philosophy itself goes one step further saying that all there *is* are in between stages of life and that the only shade *is* grey. Modern Post modernism (I can't believe I'm actually saying that) as advocated by Richard Rorty and his cohorts says that in the world there is no such thing as True/False. There's a reason Post modernism is so closely linked with deconstructionism, as anything that makes a claim outside its context must by default be wrong.
The only method of criticism in Post modernism is to criticize within the context of the system/culture. In culture this means you can't say circumcising women in other countries is wrong, nor can you say we have a right to interfere in another's war.
I don't have a problem with the general cultural movement of Post modernism, as applied to computer science (to say that there isn't always one way of doing things and that one should judge each language way of programing on its own merits rather than in comparative to another) But Post modernism ultimately can not be applied to CS in it's most profound sense, because CS at its base level ultimately requires *one* way of doing things, you have either a 1 or a 0. CS is ultimately already holistic and is unified through it's root language: math.
You can't get any more objective than that.
I still find it laughable that a great deal of Postmoderinism arose due to the problems of human linguistics and how they are ultimatly subjective, while "computer linguistics" is essentialy based in mathamatics and you can't get more objective than that.
Frankly, the absence of a value system and a "Grand Narrative" (see "No Big Picture" 7) in approaching programing is a rather dangerous mindset and can seriously lead to sloppy programing. While I'll agree that it's nice to say in principle that C++ isn't better than C# which isn't better than Java which isn't better than Qbasic, and that there's no "wrong" way to write code, in practice I'd say it's far easier and more efficient to act as though there was a Grand Narrative, and that ASM is far better for writing faster base level routines than Pascal is.
While I admit I have yet to read the whole article (I'll get to it) my first impression is that succeeds at failing where so many other "Postmodern" calls have done before. Which is to say it inadvertently deconstructs itself (one contradicts themselves when they say "there is no right way to do things" as this in itself proscribes a "right" action [to treat all ways equal])
At a more fundamental level I have a hard time accepting "Postmodernism" next to "Programing" as the former is a system stating there is no such thing as a Truth statement and the latter, at it's very core, is based on truth statements. (Yes, yes, I know there is a rather big difference between Truth and a truth, esp. when truth is meant as an on/off switch, but it still quirks me regardless =)
Either way, it's still a pretty good read.
Frankly I'm not sure what I believe, or what "theories" have greater validity or not. Though I am inclined to agree with your conclusions (that it is unlikely to find a signal from a developing civilization)
I do think however is that we (as people) tend to over generalize theories and often treat ideas (much as you said) as religions. We feel a great encompassing grand unified theory is somehow more appeasing than chaos. So we seek purpose in the universe, even should that purpose merely be an ordered cause and effect.
Unfortunately I'm inclined to believe this kind of thinking leads to many slippery slopes. In this particular instance, explaining the whole arising of human civilization as a natural product of evolutionary terms. I'm not so certian this is the case (though I'd like to see theories [with supporting evidence of course] on it) certainly evolution could be said to have gotten the ball rolling and given us an opportunity to create a species able to developed a civilization, but what, I wonder are the probabilities of that happening?
Until we have another sampling, a different evolutionary chain to compare to, saying that a "civilization" is a natural (that is to say a probable) product of evolution is as faulty as rolling an infinitely sided dice and saying the number it lands on it is always likely to land on.
Only if we can show that evolution does not have an infinite possibility for creations and traits, can we really say there is likely another civilization somewhere. And sampling of one, just ain't going to cut it.
I'm just blathering. =]
http://thomas.loc.gov/
One of the best sites to keep yourself informed. This gives you the good and the bad.
Sites like the EFF, ACLU, RIAA and MPAA are good for getting differnt view points, but their information will always be slanted in one way or another. That's what lobying groups do.
In arguments it's good to know both sides of an issue but it's even better to look at the issue itself somtimes.
I'd mod you up.
Just so you know.
A plot for power.
...or was that sugar?
In America, first you get the CDs, then you get the power, then you get the women.
Thanks! I was curious about that. I tried Babelfish, but could only take so much before the lag started driving me insane.
If the methods used were the same as those from the last survey: http://www.antivirus-china.org.cn/
Then the results are highly questionable. As it was an online survey. Without knowing the methods for all we know it could have been a website poll... and considering it's the National Computer Virus Emergency Response Center doing the survey then individuals completing the survey are probably more likely to be affiliated with such a site because they've *had* a virus.
Does any one actually read Chinese so they could give us the full story? The site's homepage is here:
http://www.antivirus-china.org.cn/
"Regarding the unabomber. Is there any evidence to suggest that technique was employed in that case (I don't think so) ? How do you know if this might not have been effective there ?
"
Just a thought you raised. I wonder how fesiable it would be to test such programs on solved crimes.
Drat, now look what you made me do. Got me all interested in a topic when I was just about to sit down and re-read theif of time. =]
Ah well.
"Judging by the results that this technique has yielded so far, I'd say the results are very impressive, especially given than the Mr. Rossmo takes great pains to point out the limitations and that the software is only truly effective as one part of the array of methods being used in such cases."
That is irrelevant as to whether it is effective in this case.
I'm not saying it is, I'm not saying it isn't.
That is yet to be determined.
"It is apparent from your comment that you have a poor understanding of the large and frightening scope of mental illness. Being mentally ill does not necessarily make the victim totally irrational. Consequently, it is not at all surprising that such a technique might well be effective. If your illness is so debilitating that you effectively behave "randomly", I submit that you would not long evade capture."
Mental Illness has nothing to do with these shootings until there is evidence to the contrary.
Completely rational people are capable of atrocities.
And again I am not saying that a killer such as the one being pursued is random. I'm saying that the baseline predictions are not necessarily reliable if the subject is an anomaly to those criteria.
In other words, probably everyone is predictable in one form or another, but you can't always know what that form is.
This is not a criticism of the software. This is a criticism of putting all your eggs in one basket. (Or perhaps more apt, all your cpu cycles on one process.)
"Regarding the unabomber. Is there any evidence to suggest that technique was employed in that case (I don't think so) ? How do you know if this might not have been effective there ?
"
I don't know. And I didn't say it wouldn't. I was saying the FBI had other software and reliable methods which in the end, were not what caught him.
I haven't looked at the program, but I'm not sure how well it would work esp. given his wide trail.
(Eg, here's 1985 bombings attributed to him)
1985 - Berkeley, CA
1985 - Auburn, WA
1985 - Ann Arbor, MI
1985 - Sacramento, CA
"NATO round is 55 grains and moves at like 3100 fps. A .22 LR is 40 grains and travels at around 1050 fps. "/I?
My mind is still stuck in cyper world (frames per second)?
In this context is it feet per second?
When one has already shown them self to be a anomaly how effective is any given method of prediction/profiling?
Let's face it, you don't go killing people as a habit. Any results from a given "profile" are not the best answer, they are merely a suggested solution to a given set of criteria, some of which we've yet to know.
If the person meets the criteria of a given profile, then yes, they are more likely to be in X place or be X person.
But we *must* keep in mind people can do other than what they would be expected to, even if we know nearly everything about them. And if they've already broken the social and moral bounds of killing their fellow man, seemingly without cause I'd say then that they are even less likely to fit a given profile.
True, they are likely to meet some criteria and be "standardized" in that aspect, but we can never know which criteria are the ones that fit their profile.
With that said we can *never* rely on just one method for a single case. We need to use many methods, often contradictory, in the hopes that one of those profiles is the correct one.
In this kind of case over confidence in our methods literally becomes a killer.
*shrug* look at people like the Uni-Bomber. If I recall correctly, the only reason he was eventually found was because his brother turned him in after recognizing his style of witting reading the manifesto.
Sorry if this isn't more eloquent. This case is actually pretty close to home for me (both geographically speaking and emotionally.) People who go out of their way to try and kill children... I really want this person gone.
"How are they two different things?
I'm arguing the definition of publicly available (a term you used.) If something is not made available to the entirety of the public, how can it be considered publicly available?"
They're differnt because you're aruging from your own definition standpoint. I'm aruging from the legal one.
The goverment qualifies what is to be considered "publicly available".
We can argue indefinitatly about the validity of the goverment's definition, but it doesn't change the definition.
"If there's any argument to be made under the ADA, it's that computer makers like Dell and Gateway (and by extension, Microsoft) are not offering an equal product to the blind."
Don't you mean the poor?
"But as long as a service requires that you meet some qualification, it isn't public...and it's not right to value one qualification (being blind) over another one (not being able to afford a computer.)"
Why isn't it right to value one qualification over another?
You can generaly help yourself from being poor.
You can't generaly help yourself from being blind.
Now you all must die!
Nothing. Not having money and not having a computer is not considered a disablity. Your arugment would only be valid if it were.
We are arguing two differnt things.
I'm arguing what the law says a person is entitled to under the ADA.
You seem to be aruging what a person *should be* entilted to. I have no statment on that matter.
"Yea, but this kind of crap gets us into all kinds of trouble. It's like when your clients says "can you do this?" on a piece of software. "anything" is possible. But many things consume inordinate amounts of resources for very little gain. This bleeding heart, everyone should be made equal stuff is a pipedream. If a corporation wants to make accomodations for various physical (or mental) handicaps, then they should. If they decide not to, let the public boycot them, not the government mandate it. Because just about anything IS possible. But we live in a world of "majorities". As you can see, once we start thinking every little so-called handicap should be accomodated for it spirals into people filing lawsuits because company X doesnt make a version of their bow & arrow for people with no arms. Get over it. "
The ADA has been around for more than 10 years and nearly all of the changes made have required minimal effort. Most of what you're aruging is a sliperly slope unless you can provide concrete examples of how much trouble the ADA has caused us.
Confusing use of word choice on my part.
/ le gal_final.html
When I say publicly provided service, I mean a services provided to anyone in the public, (it can be provided by a private firm).
Publicy provided services and public publicy provided services.
My bad, on the poor word choice.
---
The suit has basis under the ADA.
Though you raise a valid point. If the services the website provides can be accessed over the phone, then the suit might not be valid. However, if there are services on the website that aren't accessable over the phone there is little doubt in my mind that the website isn't compliant with the ADA.
If you're curious about the ADA and how it effects the net here's a good paper:
http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/saad/cs370/paper
"Does this mean I am going to go out and sue all glove makers because they don't make a right hand glove with no thumb? No. That is plain stupid."
Yes, that would be plain stupid. It would also be irrelevant to the topic at hand.
A person with a disability in our nation has a right to access public and publicly provided services under the ADA.
This is about preventing someone from making use out of a given service, a service mind you that they are fully capable of receiving, because of their disability.
Your example is incorrect. You can still wear and purchase the glove. If however (entirely hypothetical situation) the glove makers required that you give a thumb print before the purchase then there would be grounds to sue.
"The term disability means, acording to Dictionary.com [dictionary.com]
2. A disadvantage or deficiency,
3. Something that hinders or incapacitates.
Why can we not accept that there are things that we cannot do and not sue others while pretending it is someone else's fault that we have a disability. "
Again. We do accept there are things that some can't do.
What we don't accept is that there are things that someone *could* do, but isn't able to gain access to because the service is provided in a way that hampers on their disability.
"Are these (the ADA) the people that made it so that there is Brail on Drive up ATM machines?"
No. I suspect that the banks likely did that. As the component parts for one ATM fits for another (and other parts too), and its cheaper to just make one key set for all ATMs, than it is to make one for the blind, and one for everyone else.
For the record I know of one person who uses a local ATM and happens to also be blind.
"then there will be an unauthorized mirror to get the game ;)
after 'official' site goes down"
That or somone will come out with a P2P client for the X-Box. =]
Not only have they created an unauthorized X box game. They've done so using Microsoft's mascot.
I wonder how many minutes until the cease and desist letter.
The BBC is reporting that the Judge said the DMCA is ambiguous. This is not a ruling and hasn't set a precedent.
It's typical of the media to blow things out of proportion. And this happens to be one of those things.
Either way, what's really important here is whether or not the RIAA can demand a given user's name, phone number from an ISP *without* any form of a warrant or any form of legal proceeding.
This is something that not even the US government was allowed to do until recent legislation. (The patriot act tends to make things more ambiguous now, and the government can away with a lot more than before, but not as much as the RIAA wants.)
And don't look at that ambiguity as something necessarily good. It could be the nail in the coffin that lets the RIAA and others get away with such reprehensible violations of civil liberty if the courts eventually set the wrong precedents.
While being forced to pay a monitary sum is often a harsh punishment, I frankly am tired of seeing it applied to compaines.
It would be much more productive, and effective, I think to force compaines to do public service work as part of their reperations. (Much like many indivudals are forced to do comunity service work.)
In this particular case, for instance, they would make reperations to the students by prehaps getting their names off all credit and other "junk" lists, further they'd be required to do a form of "comerical" community service such as being made to work towards protecting consumer privacy.
In situations like this, monatary fines don't really seem to make a dent in the problem. When certian rights, like privacy are violated by a company it should be made not just to pay, but to help foster a protection of those rights.
Course, that's just my thoughts. Not that I'd expect to see such a thing happen all that often. (If ever)