The thing is, I could do all of these things in Gnome 2, and do them better.
A stable, mainline environment like Gnome isn't the place for experimentation. They should have let others do that and import things that worked slowly, as they were proven. If that means that certain developers left Gnome for those more experimental projects, that's just fine.
Clients often have domain specific knowledge, and that can be very useful to a developer, but they almost always can't articulate what they want and/or need very well. You will need to help them with that, but that doesn't mean dictating to them. It means interviewing them, designing, and then getting their sign off.
If you don't check to see that the transfer has been confirmed, sure, but that's no different than putting a bill on the counter and then snatching it away. It's not a hack, and you can't do it to someone that doesn't allow you to.
That is a ridiculous exaggeration. There is a huge difference between intentionally excluding the disabled and not taking their needs into consideration.
Nope, it amounts to exactly the same thing.
This kind of hyperbole is why many reasonable people who would otherwise support access for the disabled are turned off by it.
Those people are by definition unreasonable, and as such have to be smacked into doing the right thing.
Yes, they should have planned that ramp 200 years ago when the building was originally built. Hindsight is wonderful.
No business has to operate out of a 200 year old building. If they choose to, there will be many added costs.
Is that really the only choice? I'd rather use that $100M to save 20 lives by reducing pollution, having higher food or safety standards, et al. But if you want to be selfish and kill those 20 to save your kid, I guess I can understand.
There's plenty of money to cut from the military budget to do all of those things.
We both know that if that lack of legroom actually prevented you from flying, you'd raise a stink.
No one is asking for special treatment, or extra expense. You know this, but you lack the courage of your convictions to just say that you dislike the disabled.
It's exactly what we're talking about here. He wants it to be legal for businesses to intentionally design things to exclude the disabled. If a ramp costs $50,000, it's because they didn't properly plan access ahead of time. The cost isn't in the ramp, but the lack of forethought.
I'd rather spend $100 million to cure a child of cancer than to buy a fighter jet. Don't tell me we allocate resources in fair, practical, or even sensible ways.
The OP argued that businesses should be allowed to exclude people with disabilities. He was arguing for taking away, not against giving something extra.
Slashdot Mirror
Which is why we've all moved on to either other DMs, or forks like MATE or Cinnamon.
The thing is, I could do all of these things in Gnome 2, and do them better.
A stable, mainline environment like Gnome isn't the place for experimentation. They should have let others do that and import things that worked slowly, as they were proven. If that means that certain developers left Gnome for those more experimental projects, that's just fine.
Clients often have domain specific knowledge, and that can be very useful to a developer, but they almost always can't articulate what they want and/or need very well. You will need to help them with that, but that doesn't mean dictating to them. It means interviewing them, designing, and then getting their sign off.
And there's absolutely no reason they couldn't just release it as a patch.
If they want to make a full expansion, no one would complain.
The world would be in a lot better place if you couldn't burn it until you'd removed an equal or greater quantity of CO2 from the atmosphere.
They'll have to be somewhere they'll be seen, and so people will take them for their material value.
Perhaps they'd have to find some way for peers to share data with each other.
That would be a hack of the vending machine, not the currency.
If you don't check to see that the transfer has been confirmed, sure, but that's no different than putting a bill on the counter and then snatching it away. It's not a hack, and you can't do it to someone that doesn't allow you to.
No, sunshine, I was implying that you're developmentally delayed. The fact that it went over your head rather proves the point.
Keep thinking, you'll get it eventually.
Nope, it amounts to exactly the same thing.
Those people are by definition unreasonable, and as such have to be smacked into doing the right thing.
No business has to operate out of a 200 year old building. If they choose to, there will be many added costs.
There's plenty of money to cut from the military budget to do all of those things.
We both know that if that lack of legroom actually prevented you from flying, you'd raise a stink.
No one is asking for special treatment, or extra expense. You know this, but you lack the courage of your convictions to just say that you dislike the disabled.
It's exactly what we're talking about here. He wants it to be legal for businesses to intentionally design things to exclude the disabled. If a ramp costs $50,000, it's because they didn't properly plan access ahead of time. The cost isn't in the ramp, but the lack of forethought.
I'd rather spend $100 million to cure a child of cancer than to buy a fighter jet. Don't tell me we allocate resources in fair, practical, or even sensible ways.
You'd be in a world of hurt if the rest of us didn't accommodate special needs.
Yes we do.
Hypocrites like yourself are why these laws are necessary for a free society.
We both know that there's no way you'd be making this argument if it applied to you.
The OP argued that businesses should be allowed to exclude people with disabilities. He was arguing for taking away, not against giving something extra.
False equivalence. All the ADA requires is equal access.
You get to make that argument after you sever your spine. Not before.
Incorrect. The reason many businesses didn't want to serve people of colour was that it cost them more profitable white clientele to do so.
Dear Sir,
No.
Love, The Internets.
If you don't think $15,000 is a lot of money, then you really don't know what you're talking about.
Where, exactly, do you think a 21 year old college student is going to get that?
She has 11,000 songs on her iPod. If she had bought them, they'd have cost $10,890. Probably more than the car she drives (if she even has one).
Sorry my Sicilian friend, but that's just not going to happen.
It leaves them fucked. That's what happens when you do business with Microsoft.