C-SPAN! All we need to do is get the C-SPAN crowd aware of Linux and you can count on a bunch of over-zealous rioters marching on Capital Hill and the steps of Redmond within a week!
I could read that without stopping to think, "Doh! Buzzword!"
And you can code?
=) </joking>
Thanks for the feedback. =) I just need a pat on the back to assure me that there are smart marketing folks out there. I suppose it's like CEOs: the dumb ones always seem to be the ones you notice.
I suppose it's like anything else for that matter. Well, except that all of the marketing I see save a very small 1% is just unfounded hype stating how kewl a company is but not comparing anything.
"We have color movies!"
Well, yeah, and so does everyone else... for the last handful of decades, too.
I never listen to commercials when I actually sit down to watch TV now simply because, generally speaking, they all piss me off.
<tangent> It's related to the shallow material that qualifies as entertainment these days.
Steps to a sitcom joke: 1) Tell a joke that anyone can understand (and one that we often laughed at in cartoons when we were 7). 2) Laugh about it for at least 30 seconds. 3) Embed a description of the joke in the plot so that those of us in comas can understand the joke. </tangent>
I just need a reassuring pat on the back letting me know that not everyone watches "Temptation Island" and believes that.NET is the kewlest thing since sliced bread.
Well, it's a bit of a trick question because it's asking about *my* preferences.
That said, I prefer to not have it integrated. I like to be able to save it without having to load a player first. I also like to be able to choose what player I want to use.
In all fairness, I will conceed that your point is a valid one, just not for me.
I won't claim to be a Windows API developer, but everything I've read and seen on my Windows partition fits perfectly. Please prove me wrong as I'm too lazy to get a link to back myself up. I'm just your typical troll. =)
"too bad that Mozilla doesn't have close to the amount of success that IE does w/the web"
Well, we all know that the number of users using a tool is directly proportional to the quality of the tool, right?
--- "including speed of loading tables, program"
IE loads faster in a sense because it's integrated into the OS; the libraries are loaded when you boot your system. That can be seen as a good thing or a bad thing.
While I admit that Mozilla doesn't have the spunk at rendering as some other browsers do, you should try Phoenix.
--- "support"
For what? Bad HTML standards?
Name something Mozilla doesn't support that I'm going to miss on the web.
But you make money doing this "j00 suck, I'm better fag" game, right?
*This is not intended as a flame.* Read the rest of my comment.
I suppose I'm just curious to pick the brain of a marketing guy who browses slashdot. This is stereotypical, but the lead marketing guy for my company, for instance, gets paid more than twice what I do and he's a retard. I'm assuming one that browses Slashdot is a more intelligent person than those I know.
Why do you do what you do, or do you take another spin on it that most folks don't? (e.g. not the "j00 sux0r" approach, but more like "We own you because of this and this and this and this", stating real facts.)
I found it odd that they said it happened at almost the exact same time on both nights and each night it was heading in a different direction.
Being in Colorado, if on the chance it was our government playing with a new toy, I wouldn't be surprised. IIRC, Nevada, offshore California and the Rocky Mountains and parts of Colorado are prime testing areas.
There are some pretty crazy ideas out there for propulsion, however I know of none that would create anything this big in such a shape (tail only 2-3x longer than width one person stated in the Denver Post article). This also doesn't explain descriptions of "chunks falling off" of the fireball.
I have yet to see "Signs." I suppose in this case that's a good thing. =)
That's a recursive definition. See points #1 and #2.
Suffice to say that even taking #3 generally, I don't agree that not making a website conform is "...discriminating categorically". I believe discrimination implys action.
If they just followed good web design practices, they wouldn't have this problem.
You're missing my entire point. The issue in my head is whether someone else has a right to tell you whether or not you should be able to design your site as you see fit. "It sounds reasonable" isn't a reason to make a law forcing people into it. Not everyone feels that it's reasonable, and there is a limit at which you must let live and let die. People will live their own lives, and more government regulation of non-action private practices is not something we need.
--- The bottom line is that you feel that it is immoral not to help those in need.
"Not at all: One of the serious obstacles to the improvement of our race is indiscriminate charity."
You said before: "And so laws are there to ensure that people don't do the wrong thing.
Wrong thing I read as immoral: wrong is a synonym for immoral. I applied it to our conversation, it seemed to me you were saying not helping is immoral.
Again: Should it be a law that you must hold elevator doors open for people in wheelchairs? No.
"That's only because it's not immoral. Impolite maybe."
You say that it's not polite and imply that you agree with me that there shouldn't be a law requiring people to hold doors for those in wheelchairs. However you seem to think that there should be a law to force me to change my website so blind people can visit it. It would seem to me that this implys you feel it is immoral.
"It should not be a law to hold elevator doors for people in wheelchairs... because that is not immoral. It should be a law that websites should be blind compliant [because it is immoral to do otherwise]" is what I'm getting. Reversing situations.
--- "One could argue they are discriminating against people with visual disabilities and so are acting against them."
Yes, with another dictionary from the one I'm using.
From Merriam-Webster: Main Entry: discrimination Function: noun 1 a : the act of discriminating b : the process by which two stimuli differing in some aspect are responded to differently 2 : the quality or power of finely distinguishing 3 a : the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually b : prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment
1) If I run a non-blind-compliant website, how am I treating the blind different? Everyone gets the same website.
2) I am not distinguishing between the two.
3) This isn't prejudice and I'm not stereotyping. I'm not denying (imply's action) this person because of who he is.
--- I agree with *every point* you've made past what I interpret to be you calling for a law to require blind-compliance.
Good morals are wonderful and more people should have them. In theory, the government is run by the people, but in practice, it is not. I do not believe a foreign body should decide what my morals should be. Those are my own. It's society's job to raise good children, but at some point, everyone takes on the responsibility of having good morals himself. The government doesn't need to lead our lives for us.
Should it be a law that you must hold elevator doors open for people in wheelchairs? No.
"That's only because it's not immoral. Impolite maybe."
I will agree that killing someone is immoral. That's obvious.
I will agree that child neglect is immoral. You take on the responsibility of raising a child when you commit the act of having him.
I do not think that a non-public business should have to spend money against their will in aid to people they've never hurt nor made any form of agreement with.
The bottom line is that you feel that it is immoral not to help those in need. Personally, I agree completely. However the question that this issue raises is whether the government (in theory by the people) should be able to tell private businesses what to do.
I believe that the government is here to regulate (i.e. trade) and protect us. I believe the morals come from the people directly. If people wish to be immoral, that is their God given right, and I feel that the government should have no say unless they are making an active decision to _act_ _against_ a person or in other situations where you need laws (read: gov't regulation of monopolies).
This issue falls under the ladder if anything. I personally feel that public services (bus stations, airports, grocery stores) should be accomodating for everyone for the simple reason that everyone needs to be able to live within reason. However, 100% private firms are just that, private, in my mind.
I will, however, respect your opinion and say that yes, the people do decide, thus why this should go to court--our best means of taking care of it (or so it would seem).
I'd like to add: I'm all up for giving people with disabilities the ability to live a life. That is where I will draw the line that, yes, society doesn't owe them anything, but they need to be offered a life just like anyone else.
Public services run by the government and other essentials need to be accessible to these people. However, if I own a private business that doesn't play a part of regular life, I will not have anyone telling me how to design my website.
"Well, the government does tell people what to do. So generally, yes they "should."... Exactly where you draw the line is up to you, but it's also up to the government."
I love your realistic approach. Well, I'm being half serious. =)
--- "In principle I think the more accessible the web is, the better. And given that the technical challenge to making web sites functional for the blind is fairly small, then if people aren't bothering to then something needs doing."
Certainly, to a point. If I want to write my entire site in flash, that's my choice. I won't spend a week rewriting a separate blind version.
"If you're blind, click here!"
I don't, so that's another story. As I said before, if I didn't use 100% standard stuff and it wouldn't be a huge effort to make it blind-compliant, I would. Although I'm sure my attitude has something to do with the fact that I don't write pages that many people view.
--- "If we called it neglect then would it make you feel better?"
Yes.
--- "I, a taxi driver, neglected to notice the black man waiting for a cab, and instead picked up the white man waiting in the line behind him"
I'll call that as a bad analogy. Not realistic enough to fit the situation. You're grouping this racist argument with this issue and it doesn't belong. Picking the black man doesn't cost you money (read: he is just as easy to serve as the white man).
--- "Overall, maybe people should be free to do whatever they like, but that generally only works if people do the right thing." Point 1) Yes Point 2) Very true
--- "Who says what's right?" In theory, society determines the morals that determine the laws.
--- "Well, that's easy. Just ask yourself, "would I want doing to me what I'm doing to this other person?" (also included "not-doing")"
Yes. If I was in a wheelchair and someone held an elevator door longer so I could get in, I would thank them. It cost them time, and they didn't owe me anything (they didn't break my legs), but they were nice. Should it be a law that you must hold elevator doors open for people in wheelchairs? No.
I read a bit later down that the webmaster added that part later. Sorry! =\
--- "Point being.. does it even matter if the game pokes fun of linux equally if that isn't the side the players bother with?"
If a book is unbiased but the readership isn't, does that make the author guilty of being biased? =\
I will agree that this is a bit lopsided. I'm sure that while the surface is nice and kosher, the intent was to poke fun at Microsoft. However, I think this is a mature way of doing it. Yes, I said mature. =)
Think about all the satire you've laughed at in your life. I could probably call most of it immature. But it's just that -- satire. It has a lot of truth in it, but we realize that in the end it doesn't matter. I might think pages making fun of NT (check that link, hilarious IMO =D ) are hilarious, but I don't use it and I don't make it a crusade to bring NT down. I just push up Linux.
--- "And I see no reason to drop to their level."
Again, I take this as typical satire. This is "Laugh, It's Funny", not "WINBLOZE SUX0RS!" to me.
--- "I think it's already been proven we can't beat them at their game... I also think it's been proven we don't have to play their game."
Agreed. But again (-1 Redundant), I take this as satire, not FUD or flames.
--- "I wish this were the case.. but it isn't. Joe Linux can't write software any better then Joe Windows.. this is why we call him Joe:)"
Very true. Microsoft hires some of the best in the business. However, bad management who has priorities such as clippy (no pun intended) prove that good programmers can still produce buggy software.
--- "It's been a long time since one could assume the average linux user was a programmer. At best they know a tiny bit of perl.. at worst, well hey.. you don't need to know much to install a linux system these days.. isn't that the point?"
Yes, very true. I was generalizing it when I said Joe Linux is writing free software. However, many of the people that you see making fun of Microsoft (in satirical ways) are the Joe's I'm talking about. Many of the rest are just trolls, but they go where the food is anyway.
I think I've made my point. I'd love to get more feedback. =)
But if the amount of effort needed to make it accessible to the blind is negligible or nearly so (as asserted by the original poster) then it's a no brainer what you should do.
But should the government or a court tell me to?
If a blind person told me, "I can't read your website, can you please make this more standard", I would. Not that I'd need to, my websites are all straight up standards, but that's besides the point.
However, I don't want the government telling me how to run my private affairs. This is not abuse, I'm not intentionally hurting anyone. This is neutrality.
--- And besides, if it's a business then making it inaccessible to certain customers is discrimination.
I disagree. As I said, this is a neutral act, not an active one. Rejecting a black applicant because of his race is discrimination. Not thinking about making your website blind-compliant is just that -- not thinking. How can not thinking be discrimination?
As far as denying requests for changes, I still think it's private business--they should be able to run their private business however they want unless they get handouts from the guv'ment.
Jesus dude, get a clue. I don't normally flame folks, but come on!
Hiring black folks doesn't cost anything. Pouring concrete for sidewalks and spending more development time reteaching those who don't program websites correectly and double checking your site costs money.
It's private property. It's private business. Why should they spend money on something if they don't want to? I'm not blind, I don't want to be unfair, but I don't think I am. If they don't put ramps in the building, they loose business.
And it's not like blind folks can't use the *phone* to get tickets online. I know I'm taking a tiny portion of the pie here, but I think this case is a bit bogus.
Well, it does cost money to build ramps into buildings...
Although to be honest, I'm not sure which I support. If I put a business website online, I'm going to design it how the hell I want. It's my money, my server, my bandwidth, my time. I pretty much feel the same way about an office.
However, I'm not blind. I really don't want to be unfair, but I don't think I am. I do not consider myself racist or unfair.
In all unbiased fairness: Can you folks not use the *phone* ?
"As for the war analogy... I hardly see how yetanother make fun of MS game is going to help. I tend to agree with the parent.. it makes the community look cheap and childish."
[Note to the people who think this is plain microsoft bashing: it is not. This game is totally symmetrical, there is no advantage of playing tux over playing clippy, and it pokes fun at both sides.]
You say read the article. I say to you, "Read the link." =)
--- But it does prove a point.. your topic that is. 'MS started this'... iow.. 'they did it!!! it's their fault!!'. This to me reeks of recess."
While calling names (E.G. "Micro$oft Winblows" or "GPL is a cancer and anti-American") is pointless, it's understandable. Microsoft made bad software. That's fact. These days, while their software is better (IMO), they're making direct attacks on Linux and the GPL and spreading FUD.
From Microsoft's point of view, Linux is something it can't buy-out or under-cut. Marketing and legal issues are it's only weapons. They feel threatened, and the GPL goes against what they feel makes America great (so I assume anyway). Sure they'll throw out some mud.
Both sides are guilty. However, while Ballmer insults Linux, he spends the rest of his time trying to put more control in the hands of Microsoft. While Joe Linux insults Microsoft, he's out there writing free software.
Immaturity will find its way into anything. It's the rest of the story that counts.
--I get a virus on my Linux system. It has permissions to my files, so it infects every file I have. My user gets b0rked, I log on as root and wipe my user.
"You say that because you naturally assume that a linux user with any common sense won't surf web/read mail as root."
True. However I find it easier to admin my box while still using my user name. Run an admin tool and it asks you for root password. Or just use 'su'. Or open up a nested window with an entirely new logon. In my experience, Windows isn't so friendly.
--- --I get a virus on my Windows box, pre 2K or I'm logged on as admin (seems like most 'normal' users do this anyway). Oops, it has write access to my entire system. Bye bye!
"Here you assume "most" "normal" windows users surf web/read mail as Administrator."
Don't put words into my mouth. I said it seems like. And I'm not assuming what I've seen, either -- these are people I know in my personal life.
--- "Though I have to agree they have no choice on 95-98-Me systems"
That was the main point of that statement.
--- "(NT4, which is pre-2K, already supported unprivileged users)"
As a fun side note, this was also one of the buggiest and security problem prone OSes known to man.
--- they don't have to do that on recent windows OSes.
I understand this, that should have been obvious in my post.
--- And they can be just as stupid and always use a linux system as root.
Of course when you make a system idiot proof, they develop a new type of idiot. That's true. However, I find that during my RH install, it is well explained what "root" is and that you should use your own user. You're warned if you log onto the desktop as root that it can be very dangerous. While this won't prevent a determined user, it helps. Not to mention my above point that (to me), Linux seems easier to admin without initially logging on as root.
--- So it's not really the superiority of the OS that is the culprit here, it's the common sense of the user.
I'll agree again. However, just because the driver of a car determines how safe he is on the road, that doesn't mean that a faulty car is necessarily as safe as a well manufactured one. This goes for any tool. Comparing the history of the two operating systems (Windows and Linux) and their related tools, if you claim that Microsoft is just as good, you obviously don't know your history. This is not a biased threat or flame or troll -- this is historial and statistical fact. If you can't admit that, you don't deserve to debate about it. I'm being stern here, I'm not trying to be harsh.
--- --I get a virus on my Windows box post 2K. It has permissions to more than just my files and ends up infecting the majority of the system. How to clean it? I guess a $50 virus scanner.
"If it has (write) permissions to more than just your files, then: 1) you're Administrator, and clearly you shouldn't, or 2) the permissions of your filesystem are screwed."
Now I could be wrong on this. I should have said this first-off. I am an ex-Windows user who still uses a partition running 98 (now 2K) for games. From everything I recall of my system, I have access to more than just files of my creation. I'm not refering to files in c:\winnt.
--- My point is, everyone using linux knows letting/usr/bin writable by the users group is just plain silly. Why don't windows users consider the ramifications of having "Everyone" with "Full Control" access on \Progra~1 or \WINNT ? We're talking about common sense again here.
I agree, however you have to look at the inherent security of a system. If the locks on your cars are faulty, who cares if you use them or not? If the car manufacturer makes it much easier to not use those locks, that's also a downside.
--- Flame away,
You take me for a troll?
--- do consider that some ppl are just not ready to use *NIX systems, and to them Windows is just the right thing.
I know plenty of them. I recommend 2K to folks who need Windows. I also know folks who like Linux who don't know much of anything about computers: my parents, family friends and personal friends alike.
The bottom line is that, yes, user stupidity will always be the key factor until someone makes an OS in which the user is limited. I won't speculate on who that might be.
However, it's between the tool and the user, and the slowest runner sets the pace. Some tools are just inherently better than others.
Slashdot Mirror
That's it!
C-SPAN! All we need to do is get the C-SPAN crowd aware of Linux and you can count on a bunch of over-zealous rioters marching on Capital Hill and the steps of Redmond within a week!
This isn't a flame, I like C-SPAN personally. =P
How about a Slashdot contribution fund to set up a commercial on Sci-Fi or thirty commercials on UPN?
*snicker*
I'm actually being serious, it's get my $10.
*Shock*
I could read that without stopping to think, "Doh! Buzzword!"
And you can code?
=)
</joking>
Thanks for the feedback. =) I just need a pat on the back to assure me that there are smart marketing folks out there. I suppose it's like CEOs: the dumb ones always seem to be the ones you notice.
I suppose it's like anything else for that matter. Well, except that all of the marketing I see save a very small 1% is just unfounded hype stating how kewl a company is but not comparing anything.
"We have color movies!"
Well, yeah, and so does everyone else... for the last handful of decades, too.
I never listen to commercials when I actually sit down to watch TV now simply because, generally speaking, they all piss me off.
<tangent>
It's related to the shallow material that qualifies as entertainment these days.
Steps to a sitcom joke:
1) Tell a joke that anyone can understand (and one that we often laughed at in cartoons when we were 7).
2) Laugh about it for at least 30 seconds.
3) Embed a description of the joke in the plot so that those of us in comas can understand the joke.
</tangent>
I just need a reassuring pat on the back letting me know that not everyone watches "Temptation Island" and believes that
Well, it's a bit of a trick question because it's asking about *my* preferences.
That said, I prefer to not have it integrated. I like to be able to save it without having to load a player first. I also like to be able to choose what player I want to use.
In all fairness, I will conceed that your point is a valid one, just not for me.
I won't claim to be a Windows API developer, but everything I've read and seen on my Windows partition fits perfectly. Please prove me wrong as I'm too lazy to get a link to back myself up. I'm just your typical troll. =)
"too bad that Mozilla doesn't have close to the amount of success that IE does w/the web"
Well, we all know that the number of users using a tool is directly proportional to the quality of the tool, right?
---
"including speed of loading tables, program"
IE loads faster in a sense because it's integrated into the OS; the libraries are loaded when you boot your system. That can be seen as a good thing or a bad thing.
While I admit that Mozilla doesn't have the spunk at rendering as some other browsers do, you should try Phoenix.
---
"support"
For what? Bad HTML standards?
Name something Mozilla doesn't support that I'm going to miss on the web.
But you make money doing this "j00 suck, I'm better fag" game, right?
*This is not intended as a flame.* Read the rest of my comment.
I suppose I'm just curious to pick the brain of a marketing guy who browses slashdot. This is stereotypical, but the lead marketing guy for my company, for instance, gets paid more than twice what I do and he's a retard. I'm assuming one that browses Slashdot is a more intelligent person than those I know.
Why do you do what you do, or do you take another spin on it that most folks don't? (e.g. not the "j00 sux0r" approach, but more like "We own you because of this and this and this and this", stating real facts.)
I found it odd that they said it happened at almost the exact same time on both nights and each night it was heading in a different direction.
Being in Colorado, if on the chance it was our government playing with a new toy, I wouldn't be surprised. IIRC, Nevada, offshore California and the Rocky Mountains and parts of Colorado are prime testing areas.
There are some pretty crazy ideas out there for propulsion, however I know of none that would create anything this big in such a shape (tail only 2-3x longer than width one person stated in the Denver Post article). This also doesn't explain descriptions of "chunks falling off" of the fireball.
I have yet to see "Signs." I suppose in this case that's a good thing. =)
"My knowledge of guns started at the age of four when my first .22 calibre single shot rifle was purchased for me."
.22 when you were four?
You got a
I live in Texas and I never shot anything but a BB gun until I was 12.
How can you even make a comment about Americans and guns? =P
That's a recursive definition. See points #1 and #2.
Suffice to say that even taking #3 generally, I don't agree that not making a website conform is "...discriminating categorically". I believe discrimination implys action.
I'm waiting for a reply. =)
If they just followed good web design practices, they wouldn't have this problem.
... because that is not immoral. It should be a law that websites should be blind compliant [because it is immoral to do otherwise]" is what I'm getting. Reversing situations.
You're missing my entire point. The issue in my head is whether someone else has a right to tell you whether or not you should be able to design your site as you see fit. "It sounds reasonable" isn't a reason to make a law forcing people into it. Not everyone feels that it's reasonable, and there is a limit at which you must let live and let die. People will live their own lives, and more government regulation of non-action private practices is not something we need.
---
The bottom line is that you feel that it is immoral not to help those in need.
"Not at all:
One of the serious obstacles to the improvement of our race is indiscriminate charity."
You said before:
"And so laws are there to ensure that people don't do the wrong thing.
Wrong thing I read as immoral: wrong is a synonym for immoral. I applied it to our conversation, it seemed to me you were saying not helping is immoral.
Again:
Should it be a law that you must hold elevator doors open for people in wheelchairs? No.
"That's only because it's not immoral. Impolite maybe."
You say that it's not polite and imply that you agree with me that there shouldn't be a law requiring people to hold doors for those in wheelchairs. However you seem to think that there should be a law to force me to change my website so blind people can visit it. It would seem to me that this implys you feel it is immoral.
"It should not be a law to hold elevator doors for people in wheelchairs
---
"One could argue they are discriminating against people with visual disabilities and so are acting against them."
Yes, with another dictionary from the one I'm using.
From Merriam-Webster:
Main Entry: discrimination
Function: noun
1 a : the act of discriminating b : the process by which two stimuli differing in some aspect are responded to differently
2 : the quality or power of finely distinguishing
3 a : the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually b : prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment
1) If I run a non-blind-compliant website, how am I treating the blind different? Everyone gets the same website.
2) I am not distinguishing between the two.
3) This isn't prejudice and I'm not stereotyping. I'm not denying (imply's action) this person because of who he is.
---
I agree with *every point* you've made past what I interpret to be you calling for a law to require blind-compliance.
Good morals are wonderful and more people should have them. In theory, the government is run by the people, but in practice, it is not. I do not believe a foreign body should decide what my morals should be. Those are my own. It's society's job to raise good children, but at some point, everyone takes on the responsibility of having good morals himself. The government doesn't need to lead our lives for us.
Should it be a law that you must hold elevator doors open for people in wheelchairs? No.
"That's only because it's not immoral. Impolite maybe."
I will agree that killing someone is immoral. That's obvious.
I will agree that child neglect is immoral. You take on the responsibility of raising a child when you commit the act of having him.
I do not think that a non-public business should have to spend money against their will in aid to people they've never hurt nor made any form of agreement with.
The bottom line is that you feel that it is immoral not to help those in need. Personally, I agree completely. However the question that this issue raises is whether the government (in theory by the people) should be able to tell private businesses what to do.
I believe that the government is here to regulate (i.e. trade) and protect us. I believe the morals come from the people directly. If people wish to be immoral, that is their God given right, and I feel that the government should have no say unless they are making an active decision to _act_ _against_ a person or in other situations where you need laws (read: gov't regulation of monopolies).
This issue falls under the ladder if anything. I personally feel that public services (bus stations, airports, grocery stores) should be accomodating for everyone for the simple reason that everyone needs to be able to live within reason. However, 100% private firms are just that, private, in my mind.
I will, however, respect your opinion and say that yes, the people do decide, thus why this should go to court--our best means of taking care of it (or so it would seem).
I'd like to add: I'm all up for giving people with disabilities the ability to live a life. That is where I will draw the line that, yes, society doesn't owe them anything, but they need to be offered a life just like anyone else.
Public services run by the government and other essentials need to be accessible to these people. However, if I own a private business that doesn't play a part of regular life, I will not have anyone telling me how to design my website.
"Well, the government does tell people what to do. So generally, yes they "should." ... Exactly where you draw the line is up to you, but it's also up to the government."
I love your realistic approach. Well, I'm being half serious. =)
---
"In principle I think the more accessible the web is, the better. And given that the technical challenge to making web sites functional for the blind is fairly small, then if people aren't bothering to then something needs doing."
Certainly, to a point. If I want to write my entire site in flash, that's my choice. I won't spend a week rewriting a separate blind version.
"If you're blind, click here!"
I don't, so that's another story. As I said before, if I didn't use 100% standard stuff and it wouldn't be a huge effort to make it blind-compliant, I would. Although I'm sure my attitude has something to do with the fact that I don't write pages that many people view.
---
"If we called it neglect then would it make you feel better?"
Yes.
---
"I, a taxi driver, neglected to notice the black man waiting for a cab, and instead picked up the white man waiting in the line behind him"
I'll call that as a bad analogy. Not realistic enough to fit the situation. You're grouping this racist argument with this issue and it doesn't belong. Picking the black man doesn't cost you money (read: he is just as easy to serve as the white man).
---
"Overall, maybe people should be free to do whatever they like, but that generally only works if people do the right thing."
Point 1) Yes
Point 2) Very true
---
"Who says what's right?"
In theory, society determines the morals that determine the laws.
---
"Well, that's easy. Just ask yourself, "would I want doing to me what I'm doing to this other person?" (also included "not-doing")"
Yes. If I was in a wheelchair and someone held an elevator door longer so I could get in, I would thank them. It cost them time, and they didn't owe me anything (they didn't break my legs), but they were nice. Should it be a law that you must hold elevator doors open for people in wheelchairs? No.
This was a joke....
I'm a big Linux and OSS advocate... see my profile.
come on! =)
Laugh. It's Funny (TM).
...in theory. Not in practice.
"Actually I did read the link.."
:)"
I read a bit later down that the webmaster added that part later. Sorry! =\
---
"Point being.. does it even matter if the game pokes fun of linux equally if that isn't the side the players bother with?"
If a book is unbiased but the readership isn't, does that make the author guilty of being biased? =\
I will agree that this is a bit lopsided. I'm sure that while the surface is nice and kosher, the intent was to poke fun at Microsoft. However, I think this is a mature way of doing it. Yes, I said mature. =)
Think about all the satire you've laughed at in your life. I could probably call most of it immature. But it's just that -- satire. It has a lot of truth in it, but we realize that in the end it doesn't matter. I might think pages making fun of NT (check that link, hilarious IMO =D ) are hilarious, but I don't use it and I don't make it a crusade to bring NT down. I just push up Linux.
---
"And I see no reason to drop to their level."
Again, I take this as typical satire. This is "Laugh, It's Funny", not "WINBLOZE SUX0RS!" to me.
---
"I think it's already been proven we can't beat them at their game... I also think it's been proven we don't have to play their game."
Agreed. But again (-1 Redundant), I take this as satire, not FUD or flames.
---
"I wish this were the case.. but it isn't. Joe Linux can't write software any better then Joe Windows.. this is why we call him Joe
Very true. Microsoft hires some of the best in the business. However, bad management who has priorities such as clippy (no pun intended) prove that good programmers can still produce buggy software.
---
"It's been a long time since one could assume the average linux user was a programmer. At best they know a tiny bit of perl.. at worst, well hey.. you don't need to know much to install a linux system these days.. isn't that the point?"
Yes, very true. I was generalizing it when I said Joe Linux is writing free software. However, many of the people that you see making fun of Microsoft (in satirical ways) are the Joe's I'm talking about. Many of the rest are just trolls, but they go where the food is anyway.
I think I've made my point. I'd love to get more feedback. =)
But if the amount of effort needed to make it accessible to the blind is negligible or nearly so (as asserted by the original poster) then it's a no brainer what you should do.
But should the government or a court tell me to?
If a blind person told me, "I can't read your website, can you please make this more standard", I would. Not that I'd need to, my websites are all straight up standards, but that's besides the point.
However, I don't want the government telling me how to run my private affairs. This is not abuse, I'm not intentionally hurting anyone. This is neutrality.
---
And besides, if it's a business then making it inaccessible to certain customers is discrimination.
I disagree. As I said, this is a neutral act, not an active one. Rejecting a black applicant because of his race is discrimination. Not thinking about making your website blind-compliant is just that -- not thinking. How can not thinking be discrimination?
As far as denying requests for changes, I still think it's private business--they should be able to run their private business however they want unless they get handouts from the guv'ment.
I should add:
...and IIRC, that's required by law.
" Well, it does cost money to build ramps into buildings..."
Jesus dude, get a clue. I don't normally flame folks, but come on!
.
Hiring black folks doesn't cost anything. Pouring concrete for sidewalks and spending more development time reteaching those who don't program websites correectly and double checking your site costs money
It's private property. It's private business. Why should they spend money on something if they don't want to? I'm not blind, I don't want to be unfair, but I don't think I am. If they don't put ramps in the building, they loose business.
And it's not like blind folks can't use the *phone* to get tickets online. I know I'm taking a tiny portion of the pie here, but I think this case is a bit bogus.
Well, it does cost money to build ramps into buildings...
Although to be honest, I'm not sure which I support. If I put a business website online, I'm going to design it how the hell I want. It's my money, my server, my bandwidth, my time. I pretty much feel the same way about an office.
However, I'm not blind. I really don't want to be unfair, but I don't think I am. I do not consider myself racist or unfair.
In all unbiased fairness:
Can you folks not use the *phone* ?
I doubt Ballmer is the type of guy to blow money on the XBox and not make any back. ...though it might be just me.
Yeah, I'm working on a patch for Open Office and AbiWord.
...and waddles off again.
Tux waddles onto the screen:
"Hi! If you need any help, RTFM! Have a nice day!"
"As for the war analogy... I hardly see how yetanother make fun of MS game is going to help. I tend to agree with the parent.. it makes the community look cheap and childish."
From the bottom of the Tux vs. Clippy website:
[Note to the people who think this is plain microsoft bashing: it is not. This game is totally symmetrical, there is no advantage of playing tux over playing clippy, and it pokes fun at both sides.]
You say read the article. I say to you, "Read the link." =)
---
But it does prove a point.. your topic that is. 'MS started this'... iow.. 'they did it!!! it's their fault!!'. This to me reeks of recess."
While calling names (E.G. "Micro$oft Winblows" or "GPL is a cancer and anti-American") is pointless, it's understandable. Microsoft made bad software. That's fact. These days, while their software is better (IMO), they're making direct attacks on Linux and the GPL and spreading FUD.
From Microsoft's point of view, Linux is something it can't buy-out or under-cut. Marketing and legal issues are it's only weapons. They feel threatened, and the GPL goes against what they feel makes America great (so I assume anyway). Sure they'll throw out some mud.
Both sides are guilty. However, while Ballmer insults Linux, he spends the rest of his time trying to put more control in the hands of Microsoft. While Joe Linux insults Microsoft, he's out there writing free software.
Immaturity will find its way into anything. It's the rest of the story that counts.
--I get a virus on my Linux system. It has permissions to my files, so it infects every file I have. My user gets b0rked, I log on as root and wipe my user.
:
/usr/bin writable by the users group is just plain silly. Why don't windows users consider the ramifications of having "Everyone" with "Full Control" access on \Progra~1 or \WINNT ? We're talking about common sense again here.
"You say that because you naturally assume that a linux user with any common sense won't surf web/read mail as root."
True. However I find it easier to admin my box while still using my user name. Run an admin tool and it asks you for root password. Or just use 'su'. Or open up a nested window with an entirely new logon. In my experience, Windows isn't so friendly.
---
--I get a virus on my Windows box, pre 2K or I'm logged on as admin (seems like most 'normal' users do this anyway). Oops, it has write access to my entire system. Bye bye!
"Here you assume "most" "normal" windows users surf web/read mail as Administrator."
Don't put words into my mouth. I said it seems like. And I'm not assuming what I've seen, either -- these are people I know in my personal life.
---
"Though I have to agree they have no choice on 95-98-Me systems"
That was the main point of that statement.
---
"(NT4, which is pre-2K, already supported unprivileged users)"
As a fun side note, this was also one of the buggiest and security problem prone OSes known to man.
---
they don't have to do that on recent windows OSes.
I understand this, that should have been obvious in my post.
---
And they can be just as stupid and always use a linux system as root.
Of course when you make a system idiot proof, they develop a new type of idiot. That's true. However, I find that during my RH install, it is well explained what "root" is and that you should use your own user. You're warned if you log onto the desktop as root that it can be very dangerous. While this won't prevent a determined user, it helps. Not to mention my above point that (to me), Linux seems easier to admin without initially logging on as root.
---
So it's not really the superiority of the OS that is the culprit here, it's the common sense of the user.
I'll agree again. However, just because the driver of a car determines how safe he is on the road, that doesn't mean that a faulty car is necessarily as safe as a well manufactured one. This goes for any tool. Comparing the history of the two operating systems (Windows and Linux) and their related tools, if you claim that Microsoft is just as good, you obviously don't know your history. This is not a biased threat or flame or troll -- this is historial and statistical fact. If you can't admit that, you don't deserve to debate about it. I'm being stern here, I'm not trying to be harsh.
---
--I get a virus on my Windows box post 2K. It has permissions to more than just my files and ends up infecting the majority of the system. How to clean it? I guess a $50 virus scanner.
"If it has (write) permissions to more than just your files, then
1) you're Administrator, and clearly you shouldn't, or
2) the permissions of your filesystem are screwed."
Now I could be wrong on this. I should have said this first-off. I am an ex-Windows user who still uses a partition running 98 (now 2K) for games. From everything I recall of my system, I have access to more than just files of my creation. I'm not refering to files in c:\winnt.
---
My point is, everyone using linux knows letting
I agree, however you have to look at the inherent security of a system. If the locks on your cars are faulty, who cares if you use them or not? If the car manufacturer makes it much easier to not use those locks, that's also a downside.
---
Flame away,
You take me for a troll?
---
do consider that some ppl are just not ready to use *NIX systems, and to them Windows is just the right thing.
I know plenty of them. I recommend 2K to folks who need Windows. I also know folks who like Linux who don't know much of anything about computers: my parents, family friends and personal friends alike.
The bottom line is that, yes, user stupidity will always be the key factor until someone makes an OS in which the user is limited. I won't speculate on who that might be.
However, it's between the tool and the user, and the slowest runner sets the pace. Some tools are just inherently better than others.