The cost of doing business, once you are not very small, is that no one gets to discriminate. What would be truly unfair is to not have that expectation for all medium/large companies.
Here is a good example for you. It used to be the case that set-top Closed Caption decoder boxes cost Deaf individuals a couple of hundred dollars. Economies of scale, now that TVs have had the circuit built-in for a decade, has reduced this to pennies per box. Even if you personally never use captioning, does that not appeal to your basic sense of human decency?
The Web is an information medium. The same things that make the Internet work for search engines, RSS, and (someday) the Semantic Web are even more important for accessibility to people with disabilities.
pretty much everything Luke and Vader did in toppling the Emperor was pointless, because all the legwork had been done by Han and the Ewoks on the surface and by the Alliance fleet and Lando up in space
Wait, I thought the only reason the DeathStar II blew up was because Luke and Vader threw the Emperor into the reactor core! Did I make that up?
If the private sector recognized the market value there would not be end-users (with disabilities) loudly complaining to their legislators. Your vaunted "leading Internet companies", at least on the social media front, are part of the problem.
No one is asking that web pages be dumbed down. If businesses were beter about the basics, like alt tags and closed captioning, there would not be end-user clamoring for legislation.
For tax payers and the government, the results of such a study would not really matter, although I agree with you that it would be interesting to have the data. From a strictly financial accounting perspective, the cost of providing food, shelter, and some basic quality of life can only be more expensive than subsidizing gainful employment. Taxpayers and government are on the hook for the former even if they would disavow the latter. Unless one wishes to countenance warehousing, which we did for a long while in the U.S., this is good fiscal policy -- as well as being the better moral choice.
You are correct that catering to those with disabilities is not sufficiently profitable to companies this is happening in the open market. Which is exactly why we need legislation to raise the floor and make accessibility a fundamental cost of doing business for everyone.
I disagree, and so does the Department of Justice! Just as it is now settled law that their buildings must be accessible, soon it will be illegal for the websites of medium and large businesses to discriminate against people with disability. It is about time!
I think you are missing a key figure in your math! The ROI(Windows) has to be divided the among all the competition in the crowded malware space, whereas the ROI(Mac) is all on the table, especially for the first mover.
Also, V(Mac) >> V(Windows) since those consumers are spending more on their computers, it logically follows that those users have more disposable income (on average) available to be stolen. Plus the V(Mac) is much higher since it is an untapped market.
Even so, your preferred numbers are only enough to explain why there is more malware for Windows than OS X by several factors, say 10x or even 100x. Your speculation does not explain zero OS X specific viruses.
The only way for your math to explain the observed $0 ROI(Mac) situation is if C(Mac) is hugely disproportionate, say $100M instead of your $10K.
Are you open to the implications of your own reasoning? Or are you only interested in the math if it confirms your world view?
I want to give due credit to Cyndi Rowland at WebAIM for the summary. I did not link to them in submission as their site probably would not stand up to the/. effect. I share the sentiment though. This is fantastic news, and anyone who hopes to get old should be grateful.
The asshat leadership is just part of the problem though. I came to realize that the mental accommodations I had made in order to believe in a deity which was compatible with science (let alone, souls, heaven, Christ, etc.) resulted in a theology that was all but indistinguishable from wishing thinking. There is lots that I like and miss about church, but it is hard to get over the apparent fact of religion being pure invention.
> I remember people talking about the iPhone and how they were planning to get one
Correct me if I am wrong, but was that not after the iPhone has been demonstrated on stage?
> why can I not find anyone talking about the Apple tablet now?
I think it is too early for that kind of buzz. Iff the iSlate is announced but won't be shipping until months after the first demonstration, then the comparisons to the iPhone launch can be made.
As the review points out rather humorously, films targeted to children give dialogs on tariffs less screen time!
Lucas' target audience was fanbois. From a financial perspective, he was successful. Money and feeding his ego are his only motivation. Lucas gives lip service to artistic vision, but he is not credible when making such claims.
Slashdot Mirror
Go ahead and try to break Amazon's DRM to help blind people -- the government has your back (see point (6)).
The cost of doing business, once you are not very small, is that no one gets to discriminate. What would be truly unfair is to not have that expectation for all medium/large companies.
You need to get out more. There is now a modern and popular trend not to kick disabled veterns out of jobs.
Here is a good example for you. It used to be the case that set-top Closed Caption decoder boxes cost Deaf individuals a couple of hundred dollars. Economies of scale, now that TVs have had the circuit built-in for a decade, has reduced this to pennies per box. Even if you personally never use captioning, does that not appeal to your basic sense of human decency?
The Web is an information medium. The same things that make the Internet work for search engines, RSS, and (someday) the Semantic Web are even more important for accessibility to people with disabilities.
Yes, DMCA is a nightmare for the blind. Fortunately, there is an exception. See point (6).
Wait, I thought the only reason the DeathStar II blew up was because Luke and Vader threw the Emperor into the reactor core! Did I make that up?
The FCC has a call for public comment on this topic.
If the private sector recognized the market value there would not be end-users (with disabilities) loudly complaining to their legislators. Your vaunted "leading Internet companies", at least on the social media front, are part of the problem.
No one is asking that web pages be dumbed down. If businesses were beter about the basics, like alt tags and closed captioning, there would not be end-user clamoring for legislation.
For tax payers and the government, the results of such a study would not really matter, although I agree with you that it would be interesting to have the data. From a strictly financial accounting perspective, the cost of providing food, shelter, and some basic quality of life can only be more expensive than subsidizing gainful employment. Taxpayers and government are on the hook for the former even if they would disavow the latter. Unless one wishes to countenance warehousing, which we did for a long while in the U.S., this is good fiscal policy -- as well as being the better moral choice.
You are correct that catering to those with disabilities is not sufficiently profitable to companies this is happening in the open market. Which is exactly why we need legislation to raise the floor and make accessibility a fundamental cost of doing business for everyone.
> news websites? questionable.
I disagree, and so does the Department of Justice! Just as it is now settled law that their buildings must be accessible, soon it will be illegal for the websites of medium and large businesses to discriminate against people with disability. It is about time!
There is a way to add captions that is non-invasive and which will soon be required. The legislation that is focus of this article is invisible but quite important.
Thank you for calling BS on this numbers game. Sure, a 10x market share could explain 100x viruses and botnets. It does not explain zero.
I think you are missing a key figure in your math! The ROI(Windows) has to be divided the among all the competition in the crowded malware space, whereas the ROI(Mac) is all on the table, especially for the first mover.
Also, V(Mac) >> V(Windows) since those consumers are spending more on their computers, it logically follows that those users have more disposable income (on average) available to be stolen. Plus the V(Mac) is much higher since it is an untapped market.
Even so, your preferred numbers are only enough to explain why there is more malware for Windows than OS X by several factors, say 10x or even 100x. Your speculation does not explain zero OS X specific viruses.
The only way for your math to explain the observed $0 ROI(Mac) situation is if C(Mac) is hugely disproportionate, say $100M instead of your $10K.
Are you open to the implications of your own reasoning? Or are you only interested in the math if it confirms your world view?
I want to give due credit to Cyndi Rowland at WebAIM for the summary. I did not link to them in submission as their site probably would not stand up to the /. effect. I share the sentiment though. This is fantastic news, and anyone who hopes to get old should be grateful.
The asshat leadership is just part of the problem though. I came to realize that the mental accommodations I had made in order to believe in a deity which was compatible with science (let alone, souls, heaven, Christ, etc.) resulted in a theology that was all but indistinguishable from wishing thinking. There is lots that I like and miss about church, but it is hard to get over the apparent fact of religion being pure invention.
Thanks guys for an interesting and education exchange! Here is the only bit I could verify myself:
http://www.google.com/search?q=qbox+exploit+UPnP
Actually, the iPhone is argueably the most useable smartphones for the blind.
What does the Department of Energy have to do with this?
Or did you meant the the Department of Education!
Please mod parent up. Please mod grandparent down.
Nice exposition. Thanks!
> I remember people talking about the iPhone and how they were planning to get one
Correct me if I am wrong, but was that not after the iPhone has been demonstrated on stage?
> why can I not find anyone talking about the Apple tablet now?
I think it is too early for that kind of buzz. Iff the iSlate is announced but won't be shipping until months after the first demonstration, then the comparisons to the iPhone launch can be made.
As the review points out rather humorously, films targeted to children give dialogs on tariffs less screen time! Lucas' target audience was fanbois. From a financial perspective, he was successful. Money and feeding his ego are his only motivation. Lucas gives lip service to artistic vision, but he is not credible when making such claims.