"If I am opening a restaurant..., is it "completely idiotic" to require me to make the entrance wheelchair-accessible...."
No, it is not idiotic. But it should not be legally required. I would like to open a restaurant called something like "The Jungle", and have no walk-in enterance. To get into the place you have to cross a set of monkey bars, which cross over a "river". The river would be about 3 feet deep, with living fish in it, basically a fishpond. So, a paraplegic can roll his wheelchair up to the entrance, with both hands grab a bar that will lift him up to the monkey bars, and swing in to the restaurant.
People with little arm strength, or quadriplegics, would have to find a way to get across the monkey bars. And there is no rule about how many people can help someone across, so several people could get on the bars, hang with one hand, and pass a person along with their free hands.
For safety, there would have to be standard fire-exits, in the dining area, kitchen, and front area. People could use them for leaving after their meal, or swing back out again. But strictly no entry.
I know it is a stupid idea, but it is more just for the principle of the issue. I will run my business the way I see fit. If customers don't like it, they can go somewhere else. At the least I should be able to count on the large number of Libertarians who would have to eat there just on general principle. I just have to pick the right state to move to now.
There is no safe way for a blind person to drive a car right now. But when the ADA was passed in 1990, there was no realistic way for a blind person to browse the web. The web wasn't even born yet. The Internet was basically email, ftp, and such. But you want the ADA to be retrofitted to a newer technology and cover the Internet.
So you should be also arguing that Ford has to make their cars drivable for the blind. It doesn't matter that the technology isn't currently in use, it can be developed, has been developed according to that article you refer to. So every car has to be built to help the blind to drive it, with the wires and electrodes ready to plug into their heads.
This is the greatest failure of the ADA. (I feel it is an unconstitutional law, and won't abide by it personally, but that isn't a failure of the law itself.) The ADA is seen as a tool to argue the most ridiculous cases for access of the disabled. Even though the "blind people driving" senario is not your goal, someone will make it their goal. Either for notariaty or money, or just to be an asshole to the whole world, because it's not fair that they are disabled. There is no internal check on the reach of the ADA. There is nothing in it saying, "This is all we intend to do." It is all designed to make lawsuits drive business decisions, with of course, lawyers getting large fees for their work.
I'll assume you are serious, which isn't always the case here on Slashdot.:^)
But I was refering to the "Big-endian" and "Little-endian" dabate in computer architecture. Those terms are of course borrowed from Jonathan Swift's "Gulliver's Travels" novel.
Basically, it's fun to throw out this type stuff, just to give those in the know a quick smile, and to make the others wonder what the hell I mean.
I think you have me mixed up with the original poster. I was just commenting on the Monitor Without a Name post. (Insert lonely whistle sound here.) OVer all, after I figured it out, it was very funny.
EVer read Peirs Anthony? One of his series had a fractal planetary system. Each 'node' was a planet, with people, trees, etc. The first planet the protagonists go to is like Earth, with people our size, but as they travel the links between the nodes, they meet people 1 inch tall and stuff.
"Of course there's a shadow on it! With Duel-Head, your monitors are too busy slapping each other with white gloves, demanding satisfaction and poping caps at each other at high noon!! With all the tumbleweeds blowing by, how can you expect those poor GPUs to actually refresh their frame buffers!!"
I wish you guys would stop doing this stuff to me when I have a low blood-caffeine level.
Remember who ran the police department in Robocop? And remember his 4th order?
This is one of the silier thoughts from the Lib. camp. I agree with many of their principles, especially state's rights over federal rights. But then they throw an idea like this in. Just a tad too much.
refugee Pronunciation Key (rfy-j) n. One who flees in search of refuge, as in times of war, political oppression, or religious persecution.
[French réfugié, from past participle of réfugier, to take refuge, from Old French, from refuge, refuge. See refuge.]
--
The term "refugee" is not determined by outsiders debating how valid someone's claim is. It is determined by the person's reason for leaving their home. Refugees flee war and persecution, so they may live where there is less potential harm. They don't even have to leave their country, if the fighting is very localized, but they are still rufugees from that violence. Generally they would like to return to their homes after the danger is over, but sometimes the danger is never over.
From Dictionary.com again, an immigrant is "A person who leaves one country to settle permanently in another." Immigrants don't intend to return to their homes. People who immigrated to the US from Europe often wanted to make a new life here, and knew they were going to stay. They intended to find someplace to live, work for money or develop a homestead on the frontier, and have a family in the US. Illegal immigrants follow some of the same thought, but they don't have the government's blessing to come into the country. However they are not fleeing war or persecution, they are going where the jobs are.
So, to summarize, if people from France moved to the UK for better jobs or living conditions, they would be immigrants. If they did so without the proper paperwork, they would be illigal immigrants. People who fled the genocides in Rwanda or Bosnia were refugees. They were refugees the moment they set foot on the road to leave home.
Not knocking you for turning away the refugees, simply setting the labels straight.
To be fair to doctors (hell, why not), some of them are paying insurance rates of $50,000 a year, and some are way above that. This is for malpractice insurance, which recently went through the roof due to all the idiotic jury awards of millions of dollars because people are suckers for a sad story.
No, I'm not a doctor, nor do I play one in the woodshed. Just someone sick of the importance of money in everyone's life. Someone wins $100 million in the Lotto, great, I'm happy for them. Someone gets $28 BILLION because she's too stupid to stop smoking, I say shoot her in the head, and all her family, just to make the point sink in.
I think there's a misunderstanding. There are two computers because there are two seperate networks. The two computers cannot talk to each other, they don't even know each other exist. VMware is not the same, as both the real computer and the virtual computers would be talking over the same physical network cable and routers.
Hey, don't you just love remembering all that stuff? I was lucky, I was one of the techs that fixed the system, and as such, never had to actually memorize those codes. I didn't document my work with MAFs, since I worked on the mainframes and PCs, not aviation gear. I learned the basics of it of course, but never had to worry about it too much.:^)
Well if bleeding heart idiots like you would stop trying to take away the guns from decent law-abiding citizens, there would be plenty of people who would be able to overthrow the meglomaniac government we are slowly getting.
Also, several women have guns in their purse so they can shoot an attacker. So you think they should instead be vulnerable to every rapist.
As for the violent crimes in the US, it would be there with or without legal guns. Criminals don't particulary care to use 'legal' guns anyway, they use 'illegal' guns since, hey, they're criminals. The problem in the US is so many people don't have any integrity anymore, and think that killing for a pair of Nikes is OK. But it's not their fault, it's because their mother used to spank them with a wooden spoon, that's why they are murderers now.
As for a legitimate use for selling military grade weapons to the public, how else to fight off the "worlds most powerful military machine "? Your arguments contradict themselves.
And long before the sniper started, there was Jack the Ripper, The Boston Strangler, The Zodiac Killer, Charles Manson and company, Ted Bundy, Jeffery Dahmer, etc. How many people did they kill?
By the way, check out the statistics of violence in states that have specifically made gun-friendly laws, such as concealed-carry and the Make My Day laws. Crime drops, because the criminals know there is a chance, just a chance, of being shot to death while robbing, raping, burglarizing, etc.
As far as drugs, you are right. The main reason drugs are still illegal is because the government can't tax them efficiently. If marijuana could be taxed like tobacco, the US would legalize it immediately just for the money. Unfortunately, everyone can grow marijuana in their backyard or hall closet, anywhere in the country, so taxing it is difficult. Tobacco isn't so easy to grow. Now if drugs were not illegal, most of the crime would also drop because so much of it is involved in the drug trade. No one kills people over alcohol or tobacco shipments. Alcoholics don't break into houses for booze money. Smokers don't prostitute themselves to the masses for a cig.
And to finish it off: If you are so worried about guns, which are used to kill thousands of people yearly, what about cars which also kill thousands of people yearly? I have been involved in a few accidents myself, as I am not the most careful driver. However, I have never shot a gun at someone. Which piece of metal would you rather trust me with?
xa0s says: "Shooting an innocent defenseless animal to death for sport is just about as sickening as murdering a person in cold blood IMHO"
And I see no difference between killing a deer to make venison steaks and killing "an innocent defenseless" head of cabbage to make coleslaw to go with those steaks. So by your reasoning, a head of cabbage should have all the privleges as a human, although only non-gun-owning people are considered human. Face it, something has to die for you to live.
And for the record, I don't hunt. The only animals I kill for sport are ants. I can spend an afternoon squishing those little bastards to death. Is that also as sickening as murdering a person in cold blood?
So if the US had simply built a camp within Afghanistan, and kept them there, you would be okay with it? You are mad that the US moved them to a non-US area, and can therefore not give them certain rights. But what if they were still on Afghan soil?
I saw it quite often before upgrading a few months ago to Win2k, so WinNT's Notepad had the limitation. I think it was at the 64K mark, but I am not sure.
One thing I sometimes do is make a directory listing of the computer, by typing "DIR/A/S >> DIRLIST.TXT" from the command prompt. Then trying to open the file from Notepad would give that error message. Just doing this now, I get a filecount of 20,000+ files and 4,000+ directories, and a text file size of 1.5MB. Notepad 2000 opens it just fine.
On a side note, ever fill every cell in an Excel spreadsheet, just to see what will happen. Takes a long time to open it. Oh the things I do when I'm bored.
As the other response says, good parenting is not gestapo parenting.
Here would be my solution to your family's problem. 1. Sell the computer. You can always buy another after the problem is resolved, even if that's five years from now.
2. Make an appointment for your brother to see a shrink. Psychologist/Psychiatrist/Other Professional. He needs someone who has experience and training to help him see his addiction. Same as drug addicts go through rehab.
3. Ground him in the house for a few months. Invite his friends over every evening and play Monoply, Life, card games, or Twister. Or watch decent movies, nothing sexy, but not Barney either. As a family, even mom and dad.
4. Talk to him personally. Explain why you want your brother to get his life back on track. It's not about making a "running joke" about his actions, it's about not watching him ruin his life.
5. If your family is religious, go to church, but don't tell anyone there about this issue. I don't want to say that church groups love to gossip, but why take chances. Go there, listen to the sermon, be sociable, go home and play Monoply.
And of all these issues, it seems the hardest for your family would be #1, selling the PC. Don't just ground him from it. Don't put Net Nanny on it. That won't prevent him from getting porn. It will just make him more cunning. First, slick the hard drive, or remove the hard drive and smash it. Then sell the PC or donate it to charity. And promise to get him a much better one later.
By the way, where appropriate, this is directed at the parents in this situation. Print this out and hand it to them. Print out the whole conversation as well, they need to read everything.
We assume you want things on a silver platter because you are saying so. You said: "No I don't drive and don't expect you to pay for that. What I do expect is a way to do it. I and other doin't care what way it is done as long as accesability is there. And no you don't have to make the streets safe for blind drivers. You do however, have to have some means of public transport."
As I said, public transport could mean a taxi, but those already exist, so that isn't what you want. You want something else. Something else is either a bus, a subway, or a train. Which as I said before, these do not exist in rural areas, because there are too few riders to make them feasible. Therefore blind people in the country should be allowed to drive, because the government is discriminating against them by not having "some kind of transport system in the area in question."
OK, I know that isn't what you mean. I'm not stupid and neither are you. But that is the logical outcome of your argument. This is one of the big reasons so many people have come to hate the ADA. Even though you mean one thing, the arguments that seem perfectly reasonable to you mean something totally different to others. Then the lawyers get involved, and it gets even worse. The only thing that gets settled is the lawyers' tab.
In addition, I honestly don't think the government has the legal or constitutional power to enforce the ADA. If I have a store with steps in front, and no ramp, I apparently don't want people in wheelchairs to come into my store. Where in the Constitution of the United States of America does it say people have 'the right' to come into my store? Or 'the right' to pay me for goods and services? And as I've said before, this includes discrimination based on race, sex, religion, looks, intelligence, or any other criteria that someone may choose to use to reduce their customer base. The government cannot do this, and the ADA should be applied within reason to Public places. But a private business is not a public place.
Public transport? Sure, it's called a taxi. But you mean busses or subways, because why should you have to pay for it, right.
I grew up in the country, long ago. The nearest public transportation was 20 miles away. You expect the government to actually either provide public busses everywhere, or open country roads to blind poeple? Your public transport there would be the same as mine was, two feet. But now were are discriminating against the quadriplegics. What will we ever do?
Many places with steps cannot have a ramp in the same place. Ramps have to be many times longer than a set of steps of the same height. That's why so many of them are cattle chutes off the the side. If there is limited space, the only choice is steps, and a lift at the side. This is much more expensive then steps alone.
And failing to comply with the law in the first place isn't what I take issue with. It is the law itself. Forcing businesses to make accomodations to the disabled is not the role of government.
Just because many people buy tickets online does not mean it is their "primary place of business" as you say. Their primary place of business is in their airplanes. People don't go the the website and pay money just to visit the website after all. They go the website and pay money to be allowed to get onto the planes.
And I am partially disabled. My wife will probably be disabled within a decade from scoliosis. Our kids may become crippled, blind, deaf, or whetever in the future. Still doesn't excuse the infringements on my rights that the ADA presents. Or the infringements on your rights either.
Besides would a blind and deaf person feel that the Helen Keller style of communication is "reasonable accomodations" for them to enjoy a movie? There have been court cases about it.
Slashdot Mirror
"If I am opening a restaurant ..., is it "completely idiotic" to require me to make the entrance wheelchair-accessible ...."
No, it is not idiotic. But it should not be legally required. I would like to open a restaurant called something like "The Jungle", and have no walk-in enterance. To get into the place you have to cross a set of monkey bars, which cross over a "river". The river would be about 3 feet deep, with living fish in it, basically a fishpond. So, a paraplegic can roll his wheelchair up to the entrance, with both hands grab a bar that will lift him up to the monkey bars, and swing in to the restaurant.
People with little arm strength, or quadriplegics, would have to find a way to get across the monkey bars. And there is no rule about how many people can help someone across, so several people could get on the bars, hang with one hand, and pass a person along with their free hands.
For safety, there would have to be standard fire-exits, in the dining area, kitchen, and front area. People could use them for leaving after their meal, or swing back out again. But strictly no entry.
I know it is a stupid idea, but it is more just for the principle of the issue. I will run my business the way I see fit. If customers don't like it, they can go somewhere else. At the least I should be able to count on the large number of Libertarians who would have to eat there just on general principle. I just have to pick the right state to move to now.
There is no safe way for a blind person to drive a car right now. But when the ADA was passed in 1990, there was no realistic way for a blind person to browse the web. The web wasn't even born yet. The Internet was basically email, ftp, and such. But you want the ADA to be retrofitted to a newer technology and cover the Internet.
So you should be also arguing that Ford has to make their cars drivable for the blind. It doesn't matter that the technology isn't currently in use, it can be developed, has been developed according to that article you refer to. So every car has to be built to help the blind to drive it, with the wires and electrodes ready to plug into their heads.
This is the greatest failure of the ADA. (I feel it is an unconstitutional law, and won't abide by it personally, but that isn't a failure of the law itself.) The ADA is seen as a tool to argue the most ridiculous cases for access of the disabled. Even though the "blind people driving" senario is not your goal, someone will make it their goal. Either for notariaty or money, or just to be an asshole to the whole world, because it's not fair that they are disabled. There is no internal check on the reach of the ADA. There is nothing in it saying, "This is all we intend to do." It is all designed to make lawsuits drive business decisions, with of course, lawyers getting large fees for their work.
I'll assume you are serious, which isn't always the case here on Slashdot. :^)
But I was refering to the "Big-endian" and "Little-endian" dabate in computer architecture. Those terms are of course borrowed from Jonathan Swift's "Gulliver's Travels" novel.
Basically, it's fun to throw out this type stuff, just to give those in the know a quick smile, and to make the others wonder what the hell I mean.
I think you have me mixed up with the original poster. I was just commenting on the Monitor Without a Name post. (Insert lonely whistle sound here.) OVer all, after I figured it out, it was very funny.
...dial 10-10-220-911...
ROFLMAO
Good reply. As you said, police presence alone deters crime. Rent-a-cops don't scare anyone anymore.
"mini-Indians or mini-Chinese."
Don't you mean "big-indians or little-indians"?
EVer read Peirs Anthony? One of his series had a fractal planetary system. Each 'node' was a planet, with people, trees, etc. The first planet the protagonists go to is like Earth, with people our size, but as they travel the links between the nodes, they meet people 1 inch tall and stuff.
Good book, but I never did finish the series.
"Of course there's a shadow on it! With Duel-Head, your monitors are too busy slapping each other with white gloves, demanding satisfaction and poping caps at each other at high noon!! With all the tumbleweeds blowing by, how can you expect those poor GPUs to actually refresh their frame buffers!!"
I wish you guys would stop doing this stuff to me when I have a low blood-caffeine level.
"Oh, I get it!!! You meant Dual-Head! "
Cut that out.
Remember who ran the police department in Robocop? And remember his 4th order?
This is one of the silier thoughts from the Lib. camp. I agree with many of their principles, especially state's rights over federal rights. But then they throw an idea like this in. Just a tad too much.
from Dictionary.com
refugee Pronunciation Key (rfy-j)
n.
One who flees in search of refuge, as in times of war, political oppression, or religious persecution.
[French réfugié, from past participle of réfugier, to take refuge, from Old French, from refuge, refuge. See refuge.]
--
The term "refugee" is not determined by outsiders debating how valid someone's claim is. It is determined by the person's reason for leaving their home. Refugees flee war and persecution, so they may live where there is less potential harm. They don't even have to leave their country, if the fighting is very localized, but they are still rufugees from that violence. Generally they would like to return to their homes after the danger is over, but sometimes the danger is never over.
From Dictionary.com again, an immigrant is "A person who leaves one country to settle permanently in another." Immigrants don't intend to return to their homes. People who immigrated to the US from Europe often wanted to make a new life here, and knew they were going to stay. They intended to find someplace to live, work for money or develop a homestead on the frontier, and have a family in the US. Illegal immigrants follow some of the same thought, but they don't have the government's blessing to come into the country. However they are not fleeing war or persecution, they are going where the jobs are.
So, to summarize, if people from France moved to the UK for better jobs or living conditions, they would be immigrants. If they did so without the proper paperwork, they would be illigal immigrants. People who fled the genocides in Rwanda or Bosnia were refugees. They were refugees the moment they set foot on the road to leave home.
Not knocking you for turning away the refugees, simply setting the labels straight.
To be fair to doctors (hell, why not), some of them are paying insurance rates of $50,000 a year, and some are way above that. This is for malpractice insurance, which recently went through the roof due to all the idiotic jury awards of millions of dollars because people are suckers for a sad story.
No, I'm not a doctor, nor do I play one in the woodshed. Just someone sick of the importance of money in everyone's life. Someone wins $100 million in the Lotto, great, I'm happy for them. Someone gets $28 BILLION because she's too stupid to stop smoking, I say shoot her in the head, and all her family, just to make the point sink in.
I think there's a misunderstanding. There are two computers because there are two seperate networks. The two computers cannot talk to each other, they don't even know each other exist. VMware is not the same, as both the real computer and the virtual computers would be talking over the same physical network cable and routers.
Hey, don't you just love remembering all that stuff? I was lucky, I was one of the techs that fixed the system, and as such, never had to actually memorize those codes. I didn't document my work with MAFs, since I worked on the mainframes and PCs, not aviation gear. I learned the basics of it of course, but never had to worry about it too much. :^)
I feel for you really.
Well if bleeding heart idiots like you would stop trying to take away the guns from decent law-abiding citizens, there would be plenty of people who would be able to overthrow the meglomaniac government we are slowly getting.
Also, several women have guns in their purse so they can shoot an attacker. So you think they should instead be vulnerable to every rapist.
As for the violent crimes in the US, it would be there with or without legal guns. Criminals don't particulary care to use 'legal' guns anyway, they use 'illegal' guns since, hey, they're criminals. The problem in the US is so many people don't have any integrity anymore, and think that killing for a pair of Nikes is OK. But it's not their fault, it's because their mother used to spank them with a wooden spoon, that's why they are murderers now.
As for a legitimate use for selling military grade weapons to the public, how else to fight off the "worlds most powerful military machine "? Your arguments contradict themselves.
And long before the sniper started, there was Jack the Ripper, The Boston Strangler, The Zodiac Killer, Charles Manson and company, Ted Bundy, Jeffery Dahmer, etc. How many people did they kill?
By the way, check out the statistics of violence in states that have specifically made gun-friendly laws, such as concealed-carry and the Make My Day laws. Crime drops, because the criminals know there is a chance, just a chance, of being shot to death while robbing, raping, burglarizing, etc.
As far as drugs, you are right. The main reason drugs are still illegal is because the government can't tax them efficiently. If marijuana could be taxed like tobacco, the US would legalize it immediately just for the money. Unfortunately, everyone can grow marijuana in their backyard or hall closet, anywhere in the country, so taxing it is difficult. Tobacco isn't so easy to grow. Now if drugs were not illegal, most of the crime would also drop because so much of it is involved in the drug trade. No one kills people over alcohol or tobacco shipments. Alcoholics don't break into houses for booze money. Smokers don't prostitute themselves to the masses for a cig.
And to finish it off: If you are so worried about guns, which are used to kill thousands of people yearly, what about cars which also kill thousands of people yearly? I have been involved in a few accidents myself, as I am not the most careful driver. However, I have never shot a gun at someone. Which piece of metal would you rather trust me with?
xa0s says: "Shooting an innocent defenseless animal to death for sport is just about as sickening as murdering a person in cold blood IMHO"
And I see no difference between killing a deer to make venison steaks and killing "an innocent defenseless" head of cabbage to make coleslaw to go with those steaks. So by your reasoning, a head of cabbage should have all the privleges as a human, although only non-gun-owning people are considered human. Face it, something has to die for you to live.
And for the record, I don't hunt. The only animals I kill for sport are ants. I can spend an afternoon squishing those little bastards to death. Is that also as sickening as murdering a person in cold blood?
So if the US had simply built a camp within Afghanistan, and kept them there, you would be okay with it? You are mad that the US moved them to a non-US area, and can therefore not give them certain rights. But what if they were still on Afghan soil?
I saw it quite often before upgrading a few months ago to Win2k, so WinNT's Notepad had the limitation. I think it was at the 64K mark, but I am not sure.
/A /S >> DIRLIST.TXT" from the command prompt. Then trying to open the file from Notepad would give that error message. Just doing this now, I get a filecount of 20,000+ files and 4,000+ directories, and a text file size of 1.5MB. Notepad 2000 opens it just fine.
One thing I sometimes do is make a directory listing of the computer, by typing "DIR
On a side note, ever fill every cell in an Excel spreadsheet, just to see what will happen. Takes a long time to open it. Oh the things I do when I'm bored.
"This is the sort of English up with which I will not put. --Winston Churchill"
This is the sort of Galactic Standard put up with which I will not. --Yoda
Hey, my wife's ex-husband was born in the year of the dragon. Just a couple cycles before you though.
:^)
Me, I'm a dog. And proud of it.
As the other response says, good parenting is not gestapo parenting.
Here would be my solution to your family's problem.
1. Sell the computer. You can always buy another after the problem is resolved, even if that's five years from now.
2. Make an appointment for your brother to see a shrink. Psychologist/Psychiatrist/Other Professional. He needs someone who has experience and training to help him see his addiction. Same as drug addicts go through rehab.
3. Ground him in the house for a few months. Invite his friends over every evening and play Monoply, Life, card games, or Twister. Or watch decent movies, nothing sexy, but not Barney either. As a family, even mom and dad.
4. Talk to him personally. Explain why you want your brother to get his life back on track. It's not about making a "running joke" about his actions, it's about not watching him ruin his life.
5. If your family is religious, go to church, but don't tell anyone there about this issue. I don't want to say that church groups love to gossip, but why take chances. Go there, listen to the sermon, be sociable, go home and play Monoply.
And of all these issues, it seems the hardest for your family would be #1, selling the PC. Don't just ground him from it. Don't put Net Nanny on it. That won't prevent him from getting porn. It will just make him more cunning. First, slick the hard drive, or remove the hard drive and smash it. Then sell the PC or donate it to charity. And promise to get him a much better one later.
By the way, where appropriate, this is directed at the parents in this situation. Print this out and hand it to them. Print out the whole conversation as well, they need to read everything.
We assume you want things on a silver platter because you are saying so. You said:
"No I don't drive and don't expect you to pay for that.
What I do expect is a way to do it.
I and other doin't care what way it is done as long as accesability is there.
And no you don't have to make the streets safe for blind drivers. You do however, have to have some means of public transport."
As I said, public transport could mean a taxi, but those already exist, so that isn't what you want. You want something else. Something else is either a bus, a subway, or a train. Which as I said before, these do not exist in rural areas, because there are too few riders to make them feasible. Therefore blind people in the country should be allowed to drive, because the government is discriminating against them by not having "some kind of transport system in the area in question."
OK, I know that isn't what you mean. I'm not stupid and neither are you. But that is the logical outcome of your argument. This is one of the big reasons so many people have come to hate the ADA. Even though you mean one thing, the arguments that seem perfectly reasonable to you mean something totally different to others. Then the lawyers get involved, and it gets even worse. The only thing that gets settled is the lawyers' tab.
In addition, I honestly don't think the government has the legal or constitutional power to enforce the ADA. If I have a store with steps in front, and no ramp, I apparently don't want people in wheelchairs to come into my store. Where in the Constitution of the United States of America does it say people have 'the right' to come into my store? Or 'the right' to pay me for goods and services? And as I've said before, this includes discrimination based on race, sex, religion, looks, intelligence, or any other criteria that someone may choose to use to reduce their customer base. The government cannot do this, and the ADA should be applied within reason to Public places. But a private business is not a public place.
Since when are good coding practices and using standards legally required for web sites?
I can see your mouth moving, but I can't understand the sounds that are coming out.
Public transport? Sure, it's called a taxi. But you mean busses or subways, because why should you have to pay for it, right.
I grew up in the country, long ago. The nearest public transportation was 20 miles away. You expect the government to actually either provide public busses everywhere, or open country roads to blind poeple? Your public transport there would be the same as mine was, two feet. But now were are discriminating against the quadriplegics. What will we ever do?
Many places with steps cannot have a ramp in the same place. Ramps have to be many times longer than a set of steps of the same height. That's why so many of them are cattle chutes off the the side. If there is limited space, the only choice is steps, and a lift at the side. This is much more expensive then steps alone.
And failing to comply with the law in the first place isn't what I take issue with. It is the law itself. Forcing businesses to make accomodations to the disabled is not the role of government.
Just because many people buy tickets online does not mean it is their "primary place of business" as you say. Their primary place of business is in their airplanes. People don't go the the website and pay money just to visit the website after all. They go the website and pay money to be allowed to get onto the planes.
And I am partially disabled. My wife will probably be disabled within a decade from scoliosis. Our kids may become crippled, blind, deaf, or whetever in the future. Still doesn't excuse the infringements on my rights that the ADA presents. Or the infringements on your rights either.
Besides would a blind and deaf person feel that the Helen Keller style of communication is "reasonable accomodations" for them to enjoy a movie? There have been court cases about it.