You're probably right about the third comment. The question being, what will all those people be doing? Clueball apologists attempt to say "Oh, we will continue to stay ahead of the curve by innovation".
Is that right? I am really hard-pressed to think of what we can do better than the Chinese or Indians.
They'll just have to keep Mongols and Japanese and Americans and Russians and Vietnamese (for starters) from beating their asses. Intact territory, but occupied and ruled by someone else, is that what you meant to say?
Besides, if you're going to go back 3,000 years, let me assure you that what was "China", and who was "Chinese", morphed quite a lot.
What China is this that was the world leader in science and technology for most of world history? I think you exaggerate a tad.
Not quite true. They have no incentive to keep their population dirt poor - nobody does except for psychotic regimes - but they surely also realize that if the people get too wealthy compared to the richest countries, then their products are no longer attractive for export. The cost of labour is a major factor, and keeping that down is also very valuable.
It's a juggling act, to be sure. It depends on the size of your own population (i.e. what's your domestic market), and the countervailing desire to have sufficient wealth amongst the people. In my opinion, Canada has it just about right - GDP per capita in 2002 was about US $29,400 (purchasing power parity), compared to US $37,600 for the US. Belgium, Ireland, Switzerland and Norway are in the same ballpark as Canada. Considering where we are, right next door to the States, our largest market overall, and not having a large population, having cheaper labour by maybe 25% is just about right.
Mexico, OTOH, is on the wrong side of the fence. They are way down the list at US $9,000. That means lots of actual poverty, and insufficient revenues for the government. There's a reason why maybe a few tens of thousands of Canadians emigrate to the US each year, but hundreds of thousands of Mexicans do.
Now, a person might reasonably ask, why is the US doing so well if it's so wealthy? Given my above arguments? Well, a lot of factors came together (note the passive tense). A largish population, a high rate of technological innovation, free enterprise...but I personally believe that the US has now outpaced itself. The population is too rich (read too expensive), quite a few other nations now compete very effectively in technology (outsourcing offshore, anyone?), and they are on the tail end of a boom fuelled by going into debt (nationally and personally).
That's why international observers at various national elections are reasonably effective also, to the degree that they are allowed access. The principle is the same.
What makes you think you can't have one? For starters, the Chief Electoral Officer of Elections Canada is appointed by a resolution of the House of Commons, not by the Prime Minister, and reports directly to Parliament.
The system actually works. Also consider the federal and provincial Auditors-General. They routinely tear strips off the governments concerned, frequently causing immense embarrassment. If they are partisan, I'd hate to see non-partisan.
For what it's worth, I consider myself fairly informed about the issues and party platforms, although I am not affiliated with any party. One thing I did not know until this discussion was that members of the public can stay behind to watch the counting.
I participate in every election, at all three levels of government, and I do not recall being ever informed that I can do this. So I wouldn't ascribe this particular phenomenon to apathy - people simply don't know.
There are positives and negatives to voting for the person and to voting along party lines. For the record, I follow the first approach generally, and have at various times voted Liberal, NDP and PC. Not infrequently I have voted one party for my MP choice, and then next provincial election voted another party for my MLA choice. No Reform down this way, so that never happened. (Yes, yes, I know, no more Reform, no more PC).
It's always a tossup. Because there is the person that you vote for, and then there is the party philosophy (the real one, not the one that you see in their brochures necessarily). The person of party X must hew reasonably closely to the doctrine of party X, so that definitely must also be taken into account. What do you do if the candidate from party A is individually better, but the party doctrine for party B is much better, even though your local candidate for party B is mediocre?
Especially if polls show that party B will take the province or the country, most likely, does it matter at all whether the local candidate for B is sub-par? They'll be recognized for their qualities (or lack thereof), won't be in Cabinet, and won't be able to frig things up anyhow. But because your riding is now one where someone from the new ruling party was elected, your riding will get more perks than otherwise.
You also have to take into account as to whether it looks like a minority gov't may happen, as occurred here in Nova Scotia. Then all bets are off. Do you want to do a prevent defense by casting a vote for the front-running party (whose platform you like), hoping that the possibility of a minority gov't can be staved off, or do you go with your favourite local candidate from another party (who will never get into power and you like their platform less) because you know that in a minority gov't they will still have useful ability to affect things in your riding? And because they are actually the more competent individual, will be better at doing that?
For example, last election (provincial level), it was pretty obvious that a minority was going to happen, but with the Tories being the ones to form the government. I don't like the overall NDP platform much, but they tend to be good representatives, so I have voted that way in the last provincial and federal elections, comfortably secure that the party itself would not win. So we ended up with the best of both worlds - a minority Tory gov't, but an NDP powerbase in HRM, with my MLA being NDP also, and now they have a bit of clout. Not to mention, the local Tory candidate for MLA had a record for failing businesses, so it was nice to see him not make it in.
Mr Newton wasn't inventing calculus when he was 12, either.
Exactly where do you live? Who expects gradeschool students to learn what he was dealing with? I was initially confronted with calculus in academic stream 12th grade. And as another poster noted, over 90% of us can't do calculus anyway, advanced computation or not.
You think the Japanese and Chinese are teaching calculus to 8th graders? Even if they are, I wish them luck.
You know what the best math tools are? Slide rules (I still have my old one, an Aristo) and books of tables (like CRC or Jahnke & Emde). Calculators are pure murder on math skills, and computers shouldn't be used until students have already figured out what they are doing. Does a 10th grade kid who types in a formula in Mathematica or Mathlab, and then punches on the derivative button, have any clue as to what he or she just did?
I've used paper crypto in the Canadian militia, and electronic crypto in the US Marines, and I agree - what really matters is the tactical importance of the information in the event of suspected compromise. In other words, how long is it valid?
Some intelligence gathering means are less robust. You don't want an adversary knowing the resolution of your intel satellites - you particularly don't want them picking up the transmitted signals.
I recall instances in GW1 when we would get facsimiles of beach defense maps drawn by Kuwaitis - I seriously doubt that the agents themselves boated out to the ships to deliver the photos and maps. So I wonder how that info was transmitted? Some brave people any way you look at it...
Although I am now in IT, I spent 6 years in the USMC as a forward observer. 1986-92. Even then we had a fair amount of digital technology - MULEs (Modular Universal Laser Equipments) for lasing and designation (with a built-in inertial north-finding module), DCTs (Digital Communications Terminals), DMDs (Digital Message Devices), PLRS (Position Locating and Reporting System), BCS (Battery Computer System), and lots of crypto gear, plus your VHF/HF/UHF radios.
It was theoretically possible even in the late '80's (as in, 15 years ago) to conduct a fire mission without ever speaking into a radio. Lase the target with your MULE, type in the fire mission on your DMD or DCT, which is connected to the radio and crypto gear...the BCS gets it automatically, and the Fire Direction Center does its thing. AFAIK they may actually have adopted the gun position digital terminals that were being tested at the time, also.
Naturally, things like MLRS (Multiple Launch Rocket System) are digitalized to the max.
I don't know how things are now, but at least then we still relied on map and compass and binoculars (as forward observers). One EMP pulse and all that fancy stuff goes Poof. And the fire direction people practised a fair amount with firing boards and paper gunnery tables.
Time off in the middle of the day to drive to a computer bookstore and bring back some books always works - plus, you can have a nice lunch at the same time.
Documentation is excellent. If you are a wizard at it, you can fire out a technical note in a day or two, and claim a week. If you're really a wizard, you can work from home while doing it, and improve your golf game.
Leave lots and lots of documents, specs, references, and manuals open on your desk and on your not-shutdown computer.
Ensure that in your absence, that the web browser (on your not-shutdown computer) is on a page that discusses functional programming, or the problems of implementing the latest servlet spec. The boss will be secretly impressed when he wanders in and sees that.
Work through lunch...just eat sandwiches and styrofoam soup at the desk. The boss frequently wanders by and sees you at the machine, reading CUJ or something. Again, he will be secretly impressed.
Have children and/or cars. Especially children. It is possible to get excused for so much time off when you have kids.
Funny story about screensavers. We once replaced a marketing type's screen with a perfect screengrab and made it his desktop, otherwise removing all the actual icons. He was perplexed for a whole day before he cautiously approached some of us to ask for help. Hmm, why does Word not open up?
Last place I worked at, we had flex time, with official core hours of 10-2, and you picked the rest of your 4 or 5 hours per day. Only problem was, the boss always showed up at 10 AM. So if you decided to show up at 7 AM, planning to leave at 3 PM, you knew the boss was going to be there until 6 or 7 PM, and get resentful.
In fact, flex time doesn't work very well.
I've worked at places where people absolutely refused to be the first one to leave for the day. Reminds me of the Supreme Soviet, where once they stood up and started clapping for Stalin, nobody had the guts to be the first to sit down.
We had a very similar case to yours at my last job. A female employee used to come in around 7 AM, before everyone else - a few others and I showed up around 8 AM, and then you had another surge at 9 AM, and a final surge at 10 AM. Well, when she exercised her right to leave at 3 PM, a whispering campaign started, too..."How do we really know she comes in that early?"
It happened to be badmouthing mainly from the "come in at 10" crowd - soon enough, those of us who came in at 8, and saw her always already at her desk, at work, took those idiots aside and set them straight.
That's not uncommon, actually, in many software companies. The last three places I have worked at have been like that - you are a salaried employee, but when it comes right down to it, you are working on a project. If the project goes POOF, you are instantaneously superfluous, and need to scramble.
I am not going to mention the names of those particular three companies, but I can say (based on talking to friends who have worked there) that Nortel is exactly the same way, and so are a whole bunch of other companies. In other words, it's almost like a jostling mob of projects under one management, and if your project stops, it's not necessarily a case of being transferred to another.
Their position is a bit too mystical
on
World of Ends
·
· Score: 2
The Internet is actually a thing. It's clearly defined in technical terms. They (the authors of that exposition) are blurring the boundaries between the technical and the sociological when they describe TCP/IP the way they do, for example. Yeah, IP is an agreement; hell, so is SSL. So is a file format. A technical protocol is a technical agreement, not a philosophical one.
If they (and other pundits) want to start discussing the sociological, philosophical and economic impacts of the Internet on society, then they should coin a new term for it. The Internet is precisely what it is - a technical construct. The societal impacts of it are something else entirely, and ought not to be also called The Internet.
Sorry for getting irritated. Slow burn over many months with the self-important and self-indulgent pronouncements of pretentious people.
It's a figure plucked out of the air, mainly because it was ten times the $5K figure I quoted for an Asian programmer. Lighten up. I wasn't about to look up the latest median income for greatAmerican programmers.
Excuse me? The individual is unimportant in the East? Better qualify what you mean by East. Because that is a sweeping generalisation, and it's not true for a whole big chunk of Asia.
In fact it's not basically true at all. Some of the Asian cultures have strong legacies of loyalty to family, or ancestors, or authority, etc. But that doesn't mean the usurpation of individuality.
This same line of discussion has come up here many times before. One comment I have seen frequently runs along the lines of: "Well, buddy, don't be a pussy. It's all competition, and if you're good enough you'll still have a job".
Well, guess what, guys? Unless you're a genius - and I suspect most of us aren't (in fact, I'd suspect most of us are slightly above average to being very good at what we do, but we're not mostly very good) - we're going to lose our jobs. Because a decent Indian programmer making $5K a year looks a hell of a lot better than a great American programmer making $50K a year.
We have a window of less than ten years, I think, in which to react to the possible destruction of American IT. Because humans elsewhere are just as smart. Only thing is, they get paid like shit.
You think you can compete because you're better? Dream away, my son.
I read his latest article because I've read most of his writings. And I have his book on Lisp. I respect the man. That being said, I work in an office with 10 other programmers, and I'll be damned if any of us were ever nerds or persecuted. In fact, and I'll only speak for myself, I somehow doubt that I would have spent 6 years in the Marine Corps if I were a nerd.
I haven't actually met many nerds in this industry, and I wonder if that isn't a popular myth.
We have a few people promulgating BS. The few nerds among us try to make it look like all of us are. And then you have idiots like ESR making it sound like we're evangelistic.
Is it better to offer a completely different website, or to offer options in the context of an existing standard (people with all capabilities) website?
The conventional approach seems to be the latter - design your website as if everyone is sighted, has full use of hands, can hear well, and then offer options - ALT text etc etc. - for those who have disabilities.
But what about an approach where different website experiences are offered? Is it in fact the case that a blind person is going to navigate a site the same way as a sighted person? Perhaps not.
Just curious.
I am minded of when WAP/WML came out, and PDAs. It fairly rapidly became clear that one cannot repurpose web applications for different screen form factors and different network conditions. So why do we think we can repurpose for accessibility?
Slashdot Mirror
What's really important is that this proof was put out by a reclusive Russian mathematician. That pretty much clinches it.
You're probably right about the third comment. The question being, what will all those people be doing? Clueball apologists attempt to say "Oh, we will continue to stay ahead of the curve by innovation".
Is that right? I am really hard-pressed to think of what we can do better than the Chinese or Indians.
They'll just have to keep Mongols and Japanese and Americans and Russians and Vietnamese (for starters) from beating their asses. Intact territory, but occupied and ruled by someone else, is that what you meant to say?
Besides, if you're going to go back 3,000 years, let me assure you that what was "China", and who was "Chinese", morphed quite a lot.
What China is this that was the world leader in science and technology for most of world history? I think you exaggerate a tad.
Not quite true. They have no incentive to keep their population dirt poor - nobody does except for psychotic regimes - but they surely also realize that if the people get too wealthy compared to the richest countries, then their products are no longer attractive for export. The cost of labour is a major factor, and keeping that down is also very valuable.
It's a juggling act, to be sure. It depends on the size of your own population (i.e. what's your domestic market), and the countervailing desire to have sufficient wealth amongst the people. In my opinion, Canada has it just about right - GDP per capita in 2002 was about US $29,400 (purchasing power parity), compared to US $37,600 for the US. Belgium, Ireland, Switzerland and Norway are in the same ballpark as Canada. Considering where we are, right next door to the States, our largest market overall, and not having a large population, having cheaper labour by maybe 25% is just about right.
Mexico, OTOH, is on the wrong side of the fence. They are way down the list at US $9,000. That means lots of actual poverty, and insufficient revenues for the government. There's a reason why maybe a few tens of thousands of Canadians emigrate to the US each year, but hundreds of thousands of Mexicans do.
Now, a person might reasonably ask, why is the US doing so well if it's so wealthy? Given my above arguments? Well, a lot of factors came together (note the passive tense). A largish population, a high rate of technological innovation, free enterprise...but I personally believe that the US has now outpaced itself. The population is too rich (read too expensive), quite a few other nations now compete very effectively in technology (outsourcing offshore, anyone?), and they are on the tail end of a boom fuelled by going into debt (nationally and personally).
That's why international observers at various national elections are reasonably effective also, to the degree that they are allowed access. The principle is the same.
What makes you think you can't have one? For starters, the Chief Electoral Officer of Elections Canada is appointed by a resolution of the House of Commons, not by the Prime Minister, and reports directly to Parliament.
The system actually works. Also consider the federal and provincial Auditors-General. They routinely tear strips off the governments concerned, frequently causing immense embarrassment. If they are partisan, I'd hate to see non-partisan.
For what it's worth, I consider myself fairly informed about the issues and party platforms, although I am not affiliated with any party. One thing I did not know until this discussion was that members of the public can stay behind to watch the counting.
I participate in every election, at all three levels of government, and I do not recall being ever informed that I can do this. So I wouldn't ascribe this particular phenomenon to apathy - people simply don't know.
There are positives and negatives to voting for the person and to voting along party lines. For the record, I follow the first approach generally, and have at various times voted Liberal, NDP and PC. Not infrequently I have voted one party for my MP choice, and then next provincial election voted another party for my MLA choice. No Reform down this way, so that never happened. (Yes, yes, I know, no more Reform, no more PC).
It's always a tossup. Because there is the person that you vote for, and then there is the party philosophy (the real one, not the one that you see in their brochures necessarily). The person of party X must hew reasonably closely to the doctrine of party X, so that definitely must also be taken into account. What do you do if the candidate from party A is individually better, but the party doctrine for party B is much better, even though your local candidate for party B is mediocre?
Especially if polls show that party B will take the province or the country, most likely, does it matter at all whether the local candidate for B is sub-par? They'll be recognized for their qualities (or lack thereof), won't be in Cabinet, and won't be able to frig things up anyhow. But because your riding is now one where someone from the new ruling party was elected, your riding will get more perks than otherwise.
You also have to take into account as to whether it looks like a minority gov't may happen, as occurred here in Nova Scotia. Then all bets are off. Do you want to do a prevent defense by casting a vote for the front-running party (whose platform you like), hoping that the possibility of a minority gov't can be staved off, or do you go with your favourite local candidate from another party (who will never get into power and you like their platform less) because you know that in a minority gov't they will still have useful ability to affect things in your riding? And because they are actually the more competent individual, will be better at doing that?
For example, last election (provincial level), it was pretty obvious that a minority was going to happen, but with the Tories being the ones to form the government. I don't like the overall NDP platform much, but they tend to be good representatives, so I have voted that way in the last provincial and federal elections, comfortably secure that the party itself would not win. So we ended up with the best of both worlds - a minority Tory gov't, but an NDP powerbase in HRM, with my MLA being NDP also, and now they have a bit of clout. Not to mention, the local Tory candidate for MLA had a record for failing businesses, so it was nice to see him not make it in.
Mr Newton wasn't inventing calculus when he was 12, either.
Exactly where do you live? Who expects gradeschool students to learn what he was dealing with? I was initially confronted with calculus in academic stream 12th grade. And as another poster noted, over 90% of us can't do calculus anyway, advanced computation or not.
You think the Japanese and Chinese are teaching calculus to 8th graders? Even if they are, I wish them luck.
You know what the best math tools are? Slide rules (I still have my old one, an Aristo) and books of tables (like CRC or Jahnke & Emde). Calculators are pure murder on math skills, and computers shouldn't be used until students have already figured out what they are doing. Does a 10th grade kid who types in a formula in Mathematica or Mathlab, and then punches on the derivative button, have any clue as to what he or she just did?
I've used paper crypto in the Canadian militia, and electronic crypto in the US Marines, and I agree - what really matters is the tactical importance of the information in the event of suspected compromise. In other words, how long is it valid?
Some intelligence gathering means are less robust. You don't want an adversary knowing the resolution of your intel satellites - you particularly don't want them picking up the transmitted signals.
I recall instances in GW1 when we would get facsimiles of beach defense maps drawn by Kuwaitis - I seriously doubt that the agents themselves boated out to the ships to deliver the photos and maps. So I wonder how that info was transmitted? Some brave people any way you look at it...
Although I am now in IT, I spent 6 years in the USMC as a forward observer. 1986-92. Even then we had a fair amount of digital technology - MULEs (Modular Universal Laser Equipments) for lasing and designation (with a built-in inertial north-finding module), DCTs (Digital Communications Terminals), DMDs (Digital Message Devices), PLRS (Position Locating and Reporting System), BCS (Battery Computer System), and lots of crypto gear, plus your VHF/HF/UHF radios.
It was theoretically possible even in the late '80's (as in, 15 years ago) to conduct a fire mission without ever speaking into a radio. Lase the target with your MULE, type in the fire mission on your DMD or DCT, which is connected to the radio and crypto gear...the BCS gets it automatically, and the Fire Direction Center does its thing. AFAIK they may actually have adopted the gun position digital terminals that were being tested at the time, also.
Naturally, things like MLRS (Multiple Launch Rocket System) are digitalized to the max.
I don't know how things are now, but at least then we still relied on map and compass and binoculars (as forward observers). One EMP pulse and all that fancy stuff goes Poof. And the fire direction people practised a fair amount with firing boards and paper gunnery tables.
Time off in the middle of the day to drive to a computer bookstore and bring back some books always works - plus, you can have a nice lunch at the same time.
Documentation is excellent. If you are a wizard at it, you can fire out a technical note in a day or two, and claim a week. If you're really a wizard, you can work from home while doing it, and improve your golf game.
Leave lots and lots of documents, specs, references, and manuals open on your desk and on your not-shutdown computer.
Ensure that in your absence, that the web browser (on your not-shutdown computer) is on a page that discusses functional programming, or the problems of implementing the latest servlet spec. The boss will be secretly impressed when he wanders in and sees that.
Work through lunch...just eat sandwiches and styrofoam soup at the desk. The boss frequently wanders by and sees you at the machine, reading CUJ or something. Again, he will be secretly impressed.
Have children and/or cars. Especially children. It is possible to get excused for so much time off when you have kids.
Funny story about screensavers. We once replaced a marketing type's screen with a perfect screengrab and made it his desktop, otherwise removing all the actual icons. He was perplexed for a whole day before he cautiously approached some of us to ask for help. Hmm, why does Word not open up?
Last place I worked at, we had flex time, with official core hours of 10-2, and you picked the rest of your 4 or 5 hours per day. Only problem was, the boss always showed up at 10 AM. So if you decided to show up at 7 AM, planning to leave at 3 PM, you knew the boss was going to be there until 6 or 7 PM, and get resentful.
In fact, flex time doesn't work very well.
I've worked at places where people absolutely refused to be the first one to leave for the day. Reminds me of the Supreme Soviet, where once they stood up and started clapping for Stalin, nobody had the guts to be the first to sit down.
We had a very similar case to yours at my last job. A female employee used to come in around 7 AM, before everyone else - a few others and I showed up around 8 AM, and then you had another surge at 9 AM, and a final surge at 10 AM. Well, when she exercised her right to leave at 3 PM, a whispering campaign started, too..."How do we really know she comes in that early?"
It happened to be badmouthing mainly from the "come in at 10" crowd - soon enough, those of us who came in at 8, and saw her always already at her desk, at work, took those idiots aside and set them straight.
That's not uncommon, actually, in many software companies. The last three places I have worked at have been like that - you are a salaried employee, but when it comes right down to it, you are working on a project. If the project goes POOF, you are instantaneously superfluous, and need to scramble.
I am not going to mention the names of those particular three companies, but I can say (based on talking to friends who have worked there) that Nortel is exactly the same way, and so are a whole bunch of other companies. In other words, it's almost like a jostling mob of projects under one management, and if your project stops, it's not necessarily a case of being transferred to another.
The Internet is actually a thing. It's clearly defined in technical terms. They (the authors of that exposition) are blurring the boundaries between the technical and the sociological when they describe TCP/IP the way they do, for example. Yeah, IP is an agreement; hell, so is SSL. So is a file format. A technical protocol is a technical agreement, not a philosophical one.
If they (and other pundits) want to start discussing the sociological, philosophical and economic impacts of the Internet on society, then they should coin a new term for it. The Internet is precisely what it is - a technical construct. The societal impacts of it are something else entirely, and ought not to be also called The Internet.
Sorry for getting irritated. Slow burn over many months with the self-important and self-indulgent pronouncements of pretentious people.
Not being an educator, I have never heard of this philosophy. Was it also created by L Ron Hubbard?
It's a figure plucked out of the air, mainly because it was ten times the $5K figure I quoted for an Asian programmer. Lighten up. I wasn't about to look up the latest median income for greatAmerican programmers.
Excuse me? The individual is unimportant in the East? Better qualify what you mean by East. Because that is a sweeping generalisation, and it's not true for a whole big chunk of Asia.
In fact it's not basically true at all. Some of the Asian cultures have strong legacies of loyalty to family, or ancestors, or authority, etc. But that doesn't mean the usurpation of individuality.
I think you're uninformed and offbase.
Could be bad for you, if you're in IT, and someone with your skills in China or Russia can do what you do for a tenth the cost.
This same line of discussion has come up here many times before. One comment I have seen frequently runs along the lines of: "Well, buddy, don't be a pussy. It's all competition, and if you're good enough you'll still have a job".
Well, guess what, guys? Unless you're a genius - and I suspect most of us aren't (in fact, I'd suspect most of us are slightly above average to being very good at what we do, but we're not mostly very good) - we're going to lose our jobs. Because a decent Indian programmer making $5K a year looks a hell of a lot better than a great American programmer making $50K a year.
We have a window of less than ten years, I think, in which to react to the possible destruction of American IT. Because humans elsewhere are just as smart. Only thing is, they get paid like shit.
You think you can compete because you're better? Dream away, my son.
I read his latest article because I've read most of his writings. And I have his book on Lisp. I respect the man. That being said, I work in an office with 10 other programmers, and I'll be damned if any of us were ever nerds or persecuted. In fact, and I'll only speak for myself, I somehow doubt that I would have spent 6 years in the Marine Corps if I were a nerd.
I haven't actually met many nerds in this industry, and I wonder if that isn't a popular myth.
We have a few people promulgating BS. The few nerds among us try to make it look like all of us are. And then you have idiots like ESR making it sound like we're evangelistic.
Is it better to offer a completely different website, or to offer options in the context of an existing standard (people with all capabilities) website?
The conventional approach seems to be the latter - design your website as if everyone is sighted, has full use of hands, can hear well, and then offer options - ALT text etc etc. - for those who have disabilities.
But what about an approach where different website experiences are offered? Is it in fact the case that a blind person is going to navigate a site the same way as a sighted person? Perhaps not.
Just curious.
I am minded of when WAP/WML came out, and PDAs. It fairly rapidly became clear that one cannot repurpose web applications for different screen form factors and different network conditions. So why do we think we can repurpose for accessibility?
If you understand English, the Executive Summary on page 2 clearly distinguishes between OSS and Free Software.
Freeware could be taken to mean zero-cost software, oddly enough, period.
You're being pedantic and combative for no clear reason.
It would be nice to think that people could make the argument that there is a limit to how many human beings should occupy this planet.
I happen to like people a lot, seeing as how I am one. Doesn't mean I want to live like an ant in a hive.
In my experience only scared people feel threatened by calls for population control. Maybe they know something....
Late nights typing code
The tape is old! Backup fails
Summer passes by