Plenty of people use Eurotunnels car carrying services without issue, so I would say that there is an issue with Amtraks own implementation rather than the concept.
I do not have an opinion on the overall rail versus car argument here, but your comment about "fifty years from now..." may not be as accurate as you think - its the position that the UK finds itself in today, having to spend a considerable amount on railway renewal despite having spent considerable amounts in the 1990s, 1980s, 1970s and 1960s. Despite 50 years of expenditure, considerable portions of the entire rail infrastructure just isn't up to the job and has to be replaced.
I find it amusing that you list a load of dialup standards, and yet they had the same issues as this article highlights - you could never get the quoted line speed, especially with 56K, as it was all reliant on the line quality.
There are plenty of people with mobility related disabilities that are quite capable of doing most any job you can do in an office.
Fine. So does the £10,000 cost of a lift really justify the chance to employ a £15,000 a year employee?
Also, what cheap ass company doesn't put a lift (at minimum a cargo lift) into a "brand new" multilevel facility?
I have no idea where you are from, but ten grand is not cheap, and its not a sum that a small to medium business can simply invest in something that shows little to no return, regardless of whether that premise is brand new or old. I can tell you now, that in the entire time of my employment at that place, the people that used it most were.... the smokers who worked on the top floor.
as I said above, I don't think the people with disabilities ask to be treated equally. In most of the cases (that I know), they only want to be included within the limits of what can be made accessible to them
"Within the limits of what can be made accessible to them" is what we are discussing here - yes, that doorway can be widened, yes those steps can be turned into ramps, yes those flagstones can be evened out. But when it costs several thousand pounds to do it...? How many disabled customers do you need through that door in order for it to make financial sense?
applying statistics to an individual case is never a good approach even when it comes to technical matters
But its not individual cases, its practically every case I have come across.
New build is easier to manage, but the cost of converting existing premises can be extravagant and that burden has to be borne by the business. If there was a huge market of disabled persons out there who would suddenly rush in to the newly accessible premises, then fine, but we are talking about the one or two chance visitations on average. We aren't doing this because it makes financial sense, we are doing it because of social acceptance and that is where I have an issue - the government, who are requiring compliance, should meet the costs of that compliance where the burden is unduly large with regard to the bearer.
you won't know what you may miss if you don't try to include (to the best of your possibilities) other human beings in what you are doing. Potentially, you may miss a Hawkins, even if he didn't stop at the pub around the corner
Potentially we may do, but as I noted in my last post, Hawkins is the exception. Meanwhile we have spent billions of dollars/pounds/whatever on compliance which could have gone back into schools and education (via taxation and economic growth), with *more* of a chance of inspiring another Hawkins.
I don't think Stephen Hawking regularly visits the pub around the corner from me, which is a listed building and had to spend tens of thousands of British Pounds putting in lifts and ramps, plus had multiple compliance inspections and certifications to handle. I don't think Stephen Hawkings regularly visited my old employer either, who had to spend thousands of British Pounds putting in a lift in its brand new office because they deigned to have an upper floor, while never having any employee or visitor who needed wheelchair access in the 8 years I worked there.
You can quote the exception to me all you want, and Hawking is just that, but the normal every day experience for these laws is a significant burden on certain persons and companies for little gain. At which point does it actually become acceptable to say "Look, you are disabled, you are different, and its not worth the cost of doing this - how about we look at it differently and stop trying to pretend that you have the same advantages in life that we non-disabled enjoy?".
I'm betting that last comment in the paragraph above is going to get me into hot water in this discussion...
Out of interest, has anyone ever done a study on whether the effort and money put into firstly creating the laws, secondly enforcing the laws, and thirdly coming into compliance with the laws has ever come anywhere near break even with regard to increased ability of the disabled back into the community? At which point does spending billions of dollars/pounds/euros/rubles on enabling our disadvantaged beyond that which life has given them no longer make any sense?
People with money can get out of jail and people without have to stay in?
Doesn't sound like equal treatment under the law to me.
How is the law ever equal when it comes to wealth? You have higher earners paying larger percentages of tax, you have higher earners paying higher fines in some places, you have governmental schemes that are means tested. The law is not fair, why is this particular case different? Oh, sorry I forgot that this benefits those with money rather than punishes them more.
I am British, still living in the UK, and fairly recently I had the pleasure of meeting a very nice American who had moved to the UK permanently. Getting chatting with him, he said one of the major plus points of the UK is the complete social stigma surrounding drink driving - you do get idiots doing it, but you do not get people in a group pressuring someone who is driving to have a drink, its just not done. "I'm driving." gets you left well alone while still being included in rounds.
But they aren't dropping support - they aren't releasing new apps for it, but that is *not* the same as dropping support. If you buy a new car today that was first released as a model 5 years ago, are you entitled to have access to the features Ford has on newer models? No, you have the option of buying a new model and not the dated model.
Windows XP is coming up to a decade old itself - its been replaced twice over, there is no commercial reason why Microsoft should continue to support it with new features.
I think the bigger issue I have with this article is that Apple is not a startup. They were 2 decades old when they started 'innovating' with the likes of the iMac...
Yes, most of their core serverside business platforms are based on.Net in whole or in part, including Dyanmics CRM, SharePoint and SQL Server 2008 (the core has a dependency, while the additional services are also largely.Net based these days, including Reporting Services).
I never said it didn't become easier, but the meme on Slashdot is that Bilski defacto invalidated the entire concept of software patents, which it did not - and that is the reason why 'hello? Bilski scotus ruling?' doesn't actually mean anything because the Bilski ruling does not invalidate every software patent out there automatically.
The Bilski case is not the be-all-end-all decision on the topic, infact in typical Slashdot style its a meme that has taken on its own form - it does not invalidate software patents at all, it simply laid out more requirements for testing the patent-ability of something.
The Taliban, who were in control of Afghanistan at the time, were not 'participating in attacks on the US and other nations' - that was Al Quieda, a separate organisation who happened to be occupying portions of mountainous areas in Afghanistan. The Taliban simply refused to cooperate with the US in the hunt for Al Quieda within their own country, so they got grouped in with them and declared hostile. And this is the result - they became hostile.
Completely wrong, because the mandate given to the United Nations formed coalition force as a whole was to remove Iraq from Kuwait, not to force regime change in the country. 2003 was all about a non United Nations formed coalition doing something it wanted to do, rather than carry out the mandate it had been given.
I've heard people say they've tried Linux over the years. I too had tried Linux over the years. But, seriously, there's more to this than "trying". What gets people is the "trying", (mostly) trying it with the mindset of a windows user. Attempts consist of a few weeks, but never a real commitment to trying. Put Windows aside for a few months, say 6, **and take the time to learn it** (you didn't learn Windows over night) while always keeping in mind that you should forget your Window's mindset. Granted there's a lot in common. Until you really try it you are just essentially "batting an eye" at it (so to speak) without the commitment to the relationship.
Except I'm not approaching it with any mindset - I am already competent in both the major alternative desktop OSes (Windows and OSX), plus I did spend a heck of a lot of time in various older desktop environments on Linux prior to about 2000, including Window Maker for about 2 years solid. Why are you assuming that I approached it with a Windows mindset?
People should stop assuming that simply because I'm not using Linux front and center as my main desktop that I'm not competent enough to pass a judgment on it when I do use it.
Linux has had sound issues, though these days minor and almost not related to the Linux OS. It's all in how the distribution put things together. For instance, K/Ubuntu put together a half hearted attempt at Pulse Audio. But other distributions did it very well and their sound issues were uncommon. Sound technology has changed. In Vista you can adjust the sound properties on a per application basis. The modern sound systems in Linux are doing the same thing.
Windows had some very bothersome issues with the High definition audio bus. Finding a way to get that working at times was near impossible. The point is that sound issues exist(ed) in Windows (until not long ago).
Which actually highlights my point - when there was an issue with sound in Windows, it got discussed. When it got fixed, it stopped being discussed. Windows sound is not topical these days because its not a problem.
But discussions regarding quite a few topics on Linux can be guaranteed to bring up heated discussion on the pitfalls and troubles of the various options that currently exist for sound - they are still topical for discussion because they are still relevant issues.
And that is my point - mainstream OS sound systems should not be topical these days, they should be solved problems that sit in the background silently doing their job (no pun intended).
What this article is saying is that sound issues are mostly non-existent today even so, they are spending more time and research on putting together even better ways that are more friendly to the user. You are reading it wrong. The point of the article wasn't to say sound sucked, but to say it's great and even so, here you go, we are making it better with this new capability.
And, in case you didn't understand it, KDE is a desktop manager that runs atop the GUI that runs atop the OS.
The article can say whatever it wants, the discussion on the topic paints an entirely different picture...
Slashdot Mirror
Plenty of people use Eurotunnels car carrying services without issue, so I would say that there is an issue with Amtraks own implementation rather than the concept.
I do not have an opinion on the overall rail versus car argument here, but your comment about "fifty years from now..." may not be as accurate as you think - its the position that the UK finds itself in today, having to spend a considerable amount on railway renewal despite having spent considerable amounts in the 1990s, 1980s, 1970s and 1960s. Despite 50 years of expenditure, considerable portions of the entire rail infrastructure just isn't up to the job and has to be replaced.
I find it amusing that you list a load of dialup standards, and yet they had the same issues as this article highlights - you could never get the quoted line speed, especially with 56K, as it was all reliant on the line quality.
So? They should be punished for being successful? Yeah, that sounds about right.
Surely 'IFrame' would be an interface declaration for 'Frame'? :)
There are plenty of people with mobility related disabilities that are quite capable of doing most any job you can do in an office.
Fine. So does the £10,000 cost of a lift really justify the chance to employ a £15,000 a year employee?
Also, what cheap ass company doesn't put a lift (at minimum a cargo lift) into a "brand new" multilevel facility?
I have no idea where you are from, but ten grand is not cheap, and its not a sum that a small to medium business can simply invest in something that shows little to no return, regardless of whether that premise is brand new or old. I can tell you now, that in the entire time of my employment at that place, the people that used it most were .... the smokers who worked on the top floor.
as I said above, I don't think the people with disabilities ask to be treated equally. In most of the cases (that I know), they only want to be included within the limits of what can be made accessible to them
"Within the limits of what can be made accessible to them" is what we are discussing here - yes, that doorway can be widened, yes those steps can be turned into ramps, yes those flagstones can be evened out. But when it costs several thousand pounds to do it...? How many disabled customers do you need through that door in order for it to make financial sense?
applying statistics to an individual case is never a good approach even when it comes to technical matters
But its not individual cases, its practically every case I have come across.
New build is easier to manage, but the cost of converting existing premises can be extravagant and that burden has to be borne by the business. If there was a huge market of disabled persons out there who would suddenly rush in to the newly accessible premises, then fine, but we are talking about the one or two chance visitations on average. We aren't doing this because it makes financial sense, we are doing it because of social acceptance and that is where I have an issue - the government, who are requiring compliance, should meet the costs of that compliance where the burden is unduly large with regard to the bearer.
you won't know what you may miss if you don't try to include (to the best of your possibilities) other human beings in what you are doing. Potentially, you may miss a Hawkins, even if he didn't stop at the pub around the corner
Potentially we may do, but as I noted in my last post, Hawkins is the exception. Meanwhile we have spent billions of dollars/pounds/whatever on compliance which could have gone back into schools and education (via taxation and economic growth), with *more* of a chance of inspiring another Hawkins.
I don't think Stephen Hawking regularly visits the pub around the corner from me, which is a listed building and had to spend tens of thousands of British Pounds putting in lifts and ramps, plus had multiple compliance inspections and certifications to handle. I don't think Stephen Hawkings regularly visited my old employer either, who had to spend thousands of British Pounds putting in a lift in its brand new office because they deigned to have an upper floor, while never having any employee or visitor who needed wheelchair access in the 8 years I worked there.
You can quote the exception to me all you want, and Hawking is just that, but the normal every day experience for these laws is a significant burden on certain persons and companies for little gain. At which point does it actually become acceptable to say "Look, you are disabled, you are different, and its not worth the cost of doing this - how about we look at it differently and stop trying to pretend that you have the same advantages in life that we non-disabled enjoy?".
I'm betting that last comment in the paragraph above is going to get me into hot water in this discussion...
Out of interest, has anyone ever done a study on whether the effort and money put into firstly creating the laws, secondly enforcing the laws, and thirdly coming into compliance with the laws has ever come anywhere near break even with regard to increased ability of the disabled back into the community? At which point does spending billions of dollars/pounds/euros/rubles on enabling our disadvantaged beyond that which life has given them no longer make any sense?
People with money can get out of jail and people without have to stay in? Doesn't sound like equal treatment under the law to me.
How is the law ever equal when it comes to wealth? You have higher earners paying larger percentages of tax, you have higher earners paying higher fines in some places, you have governmental schemes that are means tested. The law is not fair, why is this particular case different? Oh, sorry I forgot that this benefits those with money rather than punishes them more.
I am British, still living in the UK, and fairly recently I had the pleasure of meeting a very nice American who had moved to the UK permanently. Getting chatting with him, he said one of the major plus points of the UK is the complete social stigma surrounding drink driving - you do get idiots doing it, but you do not get people in a group pressuring someone who is driving to have a drink, its just not done. "I'm driving." gets you left well alone while still being included in rounds.
They are a significnatly bigger minority than either Mac OSX or desktop Linux users. Thats some 'minority'...
But they aren't dropping support - they aren't releasing new apps for it, but that is *not* the same as dropping support. If you buy a new car today that was first released as a model 5 years ago, are you entitled to have access to the features Ford has on newer models? No, you have the option of buying a new model and not the dated model.
Windows XP is coming up to a decade old itself - its been replaced twice over, there is no commercial reason why Microsoft should continue to support it with new features.
I think the bigger issue I have with this article is that Apple is not a startup. They were 2 decades old when they started 'innovating' with the likes of the iMac...
And you have no issues with Verizon having this ability also, while operating a significant proportion of the Internet connectivity in the US?
Larger parts than just interfacing tools, and its getting more with each iteration of SQL Server.
Yes, most of their core serverside business platforms are based on .Net in whole or in part, including Dyanmics CRM, SharePoint and SQL Server 2008 (the core has a dependency, while the additional services are also largely .Net based these days, including Reporting Services).
I never said it didn't become easier, but the meme on Slashdot is that Bilski defacto invalidated the entire concept of software patents, which it did not - and that is the reason why 'hello? Bilski scotus ruling?' doesn't actually mean anything because the Bilski ruling does not invalidate every software patent out there automatically.
Thats *precisely* the extra requirements - that an idea could not be patented on the machine-or-transform test alone.
The Bilski case is not the be-all-end-all decision on the topic, infact in typical Slashdot style its a meme that has taken on its own form - it does not invalidate software patents at all, it simply laid out more requirements for testing the patent-ability of something.
The Taliban, who were in control of Afghanistan at the time, were not 'participating in attacks on the US and other nations' - that was Al Quieda, a separate organisation who happened to be occupying portions of mountainous areas in Afghanistan. The Taliban simply refused to cooperate with the US in the hunt for Al Quieda within their own country, so they got grouped in with them and declared hostile. And this is the result - they became hostile.
Completely wrong, because the mandate given to the United Nations formed coalition force as a whole was to remove Iraq from Kuwait, not to force regime change in the country. 2003 was all about a non United Nations formed coalition doing something it wanted to do, rather than carry out the mandate it had been given.
I've heard people say they've tried Linux over the years. I too had tried Linux over the years. But, seriously, there's more to this than "trying". What gets people is the "trying", (mostly) trying it with the mindset of a windows user. Attempts consist of a few weeks, but never a real commitment to trying. Put Windows aside for a few months, say 6, **and take the time to learn it** (you didn't learn Windows over night) while always keeping in mind that you should forget your Window's mindset. Granted there's a lot in common. Until you really try it you are just essentially "batting an eye" at it (so to speak) without the commitment to the relationship.
Except I'm not approaching it with any mindset - I am already competent in both the major alternative desktop OSes (Windows and OSX), plus I did spend a heck of a lot of time in various older desktop environments on Linux prior to about 2000, including Window Maker for about 2 years solid. Why are you assuming that I approached it with a Windows mindset?
People should stop assuming that simply because I'm not using Linux front and center as my main desktop that I'm not competent enough to pass a judgment on it when I do use it.
Linux has had sound issues, though these days minor and almost not related to the Linux OS. It's all in how the distribution put things together. For instance, K/Ubuntu put together a half hearted attempt at Pulse Audio. But other distributions did it very well and their sound issues were uncommon. Sound technology has changed. In Vista you can adjust the sound properties on a per application basis. The modern sound systems in Linux are doing the same thing.
Windows had some very bothersome issues with the High definition audio bus. Finding a way to get that working at times was near impossible. The point is that sound issues exist(ed) in Windows (until not long ago).
Which actually highlights my point - when there was an issue with sound in Windows, it got discussed. When it got fixed, it stopped being discussed. Windows sound is not topical these days because its not a problem.
But discussions regarding quite a few topics on Linux can be guaranteed to bring up heated discussion on the pitfalls and troubles of the various options that currently exist for sound - they are still topical for discussion because they are still relevant issues.
And that is my point - mainstream OS sound systems should not be topical these days, they should be solved problems that sit in the background silently doing their job (no pun intended).
What this article is saying is that sound issues are mostly non-existent today even so, they are spending more time and research on putting together even better ways that are more friendly to the user. You are reading it wrong. The point of the article wasn't to say sound sucked, but to say it's great and even so, here you go, we are making it better with this new capability.
And, in case you didn't understand it, KDE is a desktop manager that runs atop the GUI that runs atop the OS.
The article can say whatever it wants, the discussion on the topic paints an entirely different picture...
How much higher than 15% would those costs be if the energy companies could not offset their costs by exporting excess energy?