Great points. I learned quite a bit from some very experienced people. However, don't get overly caught in the trap of likemindedness.
What I mean is this. The people and environment you learned in/from is quite possibly ideal. However, just because you've got a room full of smart people that think things through doesn't necessarily mean that they will always come out with the best solutions. They will come out with great solutions, but will likely all have common patterns (a good thing to some extent).
The only way to possibly improve that environment is to bring in some people that think completely differently than your core group of engineers and have them justify their thinking. Have a diverse group of people will create unique solutions and viewpoints...most likely the "innovative" ones.
This isn't intended to contradict what you said. It is just a reminder that having diversity of thought is a Good Thing.
Yep. Because in this case MOST are capable of doing X. That is my point plain and simple.
Yeah, they can probably get a GED, but certainly can't get a college diploma
AGAIN, there ARE situations that make this almost impossible. However, I know people that work, have families AND go back to college. Does it suck for them at the time? Yes. But will it pay off in the long run for them? Most likely.
It is easy to "fall deeper and deeper in debt". It is hard to work your way to the top (or middle or wherever). And just because it is hard and MOSTchoose to not put in the effort to better themselves DOES NOT GIVE THEM THE RIGHT to "desverve" money from me and the other productive members of society (welfare, etc).
What about those of us who can't do X?
I am all for welfare, etc to help people who have been
injured in a car accident, lost their car, had to drop out of school, lost their parent's health insurance cause of that, etc. Or their parent's company folded, taking the pension and health insurance with it.
As that is what it was designed for and I involuntarily (via taxes) support. Also, I also give voluntarily to charities that help these people as well. But again, my problem is not with those people. I do have a problem with people that are capable of the aforementioned X and choose not to do anything about it. That was and is the point of my rant. You've chosen to nit-pick an area that I tried to exclude from my example/situation.
You've never fallen
Maybe in the overall big picture, I have not taken any huge falls, but I have failed in some areas. But what did I do when I did? I kept going instead of complaining about not having a safety net.
There isn't anymore.
I really don't know what you mean. Did there used to be one? If so, what happened to it?
And don't assume everyone who fell jumped or even was stupidly leaning over the edge.
To quote the great movie Zoolander:
Maury: What do you do, Derrick, when you fall off the horse?
Derrick: (blank stare)
Maury: You get back on the horse!
Derrick: Damn it Maury, I'm a model, not a gymnist!
It could bring a whole new meaning to being "turned on"
Re:I joke a lot on Slashdot, but serious question
on
The Math Behind PageRank
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Here is an email with associated response I received from Google on roughly this topic.
This is a very general question. I'm creating a website. It is going to be a blogging platform. Obviouslly, the content of the site(s) is the most important thing. I've already started making the content of my site dynamic in the sense that I tailor it to the requesting agent (via the user-agent header). My intention for doing this is to make sure that the content renders correctly for *any* browser that accesses the site. I've built the site modularly, so tailoring the content to the requesting agent isn't a big deal. However that leads me to my question(s) and the reason I am emailing you? FYI, I have no ulterior motives for being able to tailor my content, other than making sure that the user get the most usefull information.
That said. When a "bot" (ie your crawler) accesses my site. I'm going to treat it like I would a mobile browser. I'm going to give the minimal markup and the css will be very simple. I'm going to make sure that my content comes before my navigation, advertisements, etc in the source.
My real question is does the fact that I'm presenting you the content of my site differently from other browsers make a difference? If so, (then again my reasoning is to make sure that my users get the correct content) how do I prevent this from hurting me in your rankings? If not, then how do you protect yourself from other sites taking advantage of this "hole"? Meaning I could make my site appear legit when I knew your bots were crawling me, but give "alternate" content when real users were visiting.
Last question. Do you have any idea when your ads will work correctly with xhtml?
Hope you weren't expecting a straightforward answer (like I was), because here is what I got back
Hello Jonathon,
Thanks for your email about the website you're creating.
First, since you asked when our program will support XHTML, I wanted to let you know that we're unable to say if we'll support XHTML pages in the future.
While the AdSense team isn't able to answer your questions about your site's ranking in the Google search index, I'd recommend visiting http://www.google.com/support/webmasters . I also wanted to let you know that our advertising programs are independent of our search results. Participation in AdWords and AdSense doesn't affect inclusion or ranking in the Google search index.
I've also included answers to some of the most common questions AdSense publishers have asked.
How can I improve my site's ranking? Answer: http://www.google.com/support/w ebmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=34432&hl=en_US
H ow do I add my site to Google's search results? Answer: http://www.google.com/support/w ebmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=34397&hl=en_US
M y site is no longer included in the search results. What happened? Answer: http://www.google.com/support/ webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=34443&hl=en_US
Why doesn't my site show up for a specific keyword? Answer: http://www.google.com/support/w ebmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=34434&hl=en_US
F or additional questions, I'd encourage you to visit the AdSense Help Center (http://www.google.com/adsense_help), our complete resource center for all AdSense topics. Alternatively, feel free to post your question on the forum just for AdSense publishers: the AdSense Help Group (http://groups.google.com/group/adsense-hel p).
Great outlook on life. I'm probably going to get modded into oblivion for this stance. But here are my thoughts on that particular situation you just outlined.
you will never have the $6,000 a year spare it costs to go to University, so you're stuck making minimum wage for life. Yay...
Take out a loan, goto college/University. Get a job that pays over the minimum wage, use that extra money you *should* be making to pay off the loan (not buy Celine Dion CD's...haha Canada joke). Once the loan is payed off, SAVE your excess money and either start a business of your own to exploit the people who are willing to accept minimum wage OR move to America, the land of opportunity, where (for some reason people think) life comes easy and you can get paid mega bucks for just being a citizen.
Again, there are some circumstances that don't allow this to apply to everyone. But by and large people are in the situations they allow themselves to get in. If you make minimum wage it is probably your own fault. I've never made minimum wage in my entire life because when I started working (15) I took the necessary action to make myself more valuable (lifeguard training) and started ever so slightly above...but wait, theres more. I took additional training (paid for by my employer) and got additional certifications which (surprisingly) allowed me to increase my pay even more. I continued working my way up and by the time I was a senior in high school I was the head lifeguard. I managed several people and made a pretty good hourly rate. Then I went to college. I didn't have to work my freshman year (insert silver spoon remarks here), but starting my sophomore year, I started working (gaining experience) and continued to do so all the way throughout. When I graduated, I had a great resume and actually ended up getting a job paying higher than the national average for my occupation (computer engineer). I'm not done yet. After I would leave work, I would learn new technologies (skills) partly out of curiosity but also to become more valuable...and guess what? I did. I did some part time work (after my first job) that ended up landing me the job that I have now, which has been great.
Now, let me ask you this? What prevents you or any citizen in a developed country (I guess Canada counts...haha again) outside of laziness and apathy from doing more or less the exact same thing I did?
I'm actually one of those "just go get a job" type people for just about (I know there are exceptions so don't start in on that) every one that lives in a developed nation. There are so many opportunities but yet apathy and an unfounded sense of entitlement have become entirely too commonplace. That said, most of the people that actually are struggling to meet the cost of not dying really don't have any way of bettering themselves...so I guess that is my point.
FYI, my karma is just fine...excellent to be exact, but thanks for asking/wondering.
Very true, but they are one of the biggest (don't have numbers to back me up). As such, hardware and 3rd party manufactures will migrate toward their larger install base (just like apps for windows vs linux). So, its one of those cases where they may not actually be a monopoly, but they are in a good position to become (to some extent) one.
Anyone well informed about this motherboard VoIP features is surely well aware of SIP
Again very true, but its all about marketing. You have to have companies with a vested interest in SIP succeeding in order for it to really go mainstream and beat out these proprietary implementations. Because the people that "own" those implementation DO have a vested interest...and will work to get hardware support/lock-in. So again, nothing to do with the "best" technology...marking will triumph again.
First, I agree with you, but lets just see what happens when we substitute a few words...
Why on earth would someone prefer proprietary OS in a computer when one can have those cheap linux/*BSD ones with much more functionality, open standards backed from most hardware leaders, no need for dedicated anti-virus programs, with little system requirements, better support and customization options, plus its free. It is really a no brainer.
In the long run Windows is doomed.
Interesting...don't you think? It isn't technology that matters the most, its marketing/partnerships/business savvy. People know about Vonage and Skype and to some extent aren't "afraid" of it...but asterisk??? For another example, MythTV is superior to TiVo, but guess who is winning that battle?
Again, I don't think you have grasped what I was saying. Not suprisingly...
No, the post on/. will not make a difference to grandma jane because she has no clue/. even exists.
However the same people that are on/. are the same people that are on the support forums. So if that guy shoots his mouth off in here to some other guy that says he's buying windows...do you not think he is going to be the same jackass on the forums when/if grandma jane asks for help there? My guess, yes.
So let me summarize life for you. You are a jackass. You call people idiots on/. after not being competent enough to read through their posts and understand what point they were actually trying to make. I don't want to talk to you no more, you empty headed animal food trough wiper. I fart in your general direction. Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries.
Individuals don't choose. They use whatever is installed on the PC they bought. They also don't read slashdot.
Yes you are an idiot, sorry to break it to you.
Either that was sarcastic and there is some humor to be found or well...I'm just speechless. If individuals don't read/. then who/what are you??? What am I???
I wasn't talking about corporate people/IT decisions. I was talking about individual consumers wanting to make "the switch" and when they try, people like that guy (and not necessarily on/.) calling them a "fool" doesn't help.
Its always rumored about people being jackasses on mailing lists, support forums, etc. I've been pretty fortunate in my attempts for help...probably because I actually know how to word my questions. However, that type of attitude when someones computer isn't working and all they know how to say is "the screen froze up and gave me an error" doesn't help solve their problem OR help their opinion of linux/the software/FOSS all-together.
The original post was that the people that actually listen to Gates and Ballmer are people that have an interest in the technology. I'm sure you drive a car, but do you listen (or even care to listen) to keynote speeches from auto manufacture CEOs? Probably not unless you are somehow related to cars. Same with *average* consumers and technology leaders...they don't listen to them and don't care. They just want the products to work. And for the most part windows does just that.
Oh yeah, and thanks for the idiot comment. I'm glad to know that you can assess my intellectual capacity from a post that YOU misunderstood.
Granted the president has a lot of power, but it takes a lot more than just him to make any of those actions actually happen. So I won't argue that the past century has had its share of "characters" (or people without it), but I don't think you can put all of the blame on any single person for any of those acts (ok, minus the intern one).
...Ballmer and Gates...Ballmer...Ballmer...Ballmer and Gates...
Nope, while they may be the "corporate face" of MS how many people that aren't in the tech industry (again playing to your/. crowd) know who they are (ok, not Gates).
But some shcmuck on slashdot criticizing some other schmuck on slashdot well that hinders the adoption of all open source software!
Yep, and here is why. Choosing Windows is the safe and easy choice. Everyone uses it and if you have problems you can run down to Best Buy and have Geek Squad solve all your problems. If for some reason (and there are plenty of them...I only run linux on my servers) someone decides to make that magical jump over to linux then who are they going to turn to when something goes wrong? They've been hearing about how great the "communities" surrounding "linux" are, so they ask a question. When they get called a "fool" for not knowing about a command line or vi or bash or whatever they will leave with a bad taste in their mouth not just about "linux" but all open source software.
So yes the schmuck on slashdot can cause as much if not more harm to FOSS through his (unfounded) elitist babble than Gates or Ballmer addressing thousands (of their own zealots) and spreading their own fud.
That is what is wrong. The parent posted FACTS (that he was going to get Vista, along with most everyone else) and since it isn't pro-FOSS its considered fud.
I like/. because I can get tech news with some occasional informed/insightful debate on the topic. However, I'm reading the comments less and less because of people like you that can get modded insightful for comments that have ZERO pertinence to the topic. Its no wonder that every year is the "year of the linux desktop" on/. because you have a safe little niche of like minded zealots that will agree with you unconditionally.
Its narrow minded sentiment like this that actually keeps people from switching to linux and its surrounding projects. You called the man a fool for stating a FACT. Instead of negative sentiment about M$ why not just give the reasons/FACTS of why linux and FOSS is a better solution. The results might surprise you, unless the only result that you expect from your generosity is for the people you to help to gain your zealotness.
Go ahead and mod me whatever, I've got karma to burn from making insightful posts...
I tried to make sure that I said that it wasn't a black and white issue and that each case needs to be thought through carefully.
I'm not trying to be "disability hating" or harp on the wheel-chair accessibility subject (as it one of many aspects) but do you really think that a majority of publicly accessible buildings actually recoup the costs of making the building wheel-chair accessible from sales of products to people with the need? I could be misguided in my thinking but I would doubt it.
AGAIN, I AM NOT SAYING MAKING BUILDINGS BEING WHEEL-CHAIR ACCESSIBLE IS A BAD THING...BUT...IT DOES CREATE INEFFICIENCIES.
The question isn't whether or not we should accommodate disabilities. The question is, which ones and to what extent. Accommodating ALL is flat out wrong and will fail 100% of the time. Accommodating none is also probably wrong. I don't know what the magic number/percentage/ratio is. In an ideal situation everyone would be equal and this converstaion/issue wouldn't exist/be valid. But since that isn't the case, I would think the next best case would be one where the decision to accommodate would fall more on the service provider. However, most would choose to cut corners/costs and the people who were unfairly disadvantaged would pay the price. However, even then I would hope that they would be accommodated relative to their respective (potential) return.
Wish I had more time for this...as that last little bit needs a lot more explanation.
Good points. I was mainly trying to get across the fact that accommodating disabilities *generally* causes inefficiencies. Whether or not they are acceptable will be a difficult choice. The wheel-chair ramps analogy was just an easy to visualize example.
any interaction with the government needs to be lowest common denominator so that everyone who has to live under the rule of the government can also get the benefit that their taxes are supposedly paying for
Agree and disagree.
First, I agree because if you are paying (through taxes) then you should be able to receive the same benefits as everyone else who also pays (taxes). However, (really not sure on this so correct if I am wrong) there a tax breaks, etc for people with disabilities. So in so sense the fact that they can't receive all of the benefits of gov't programs is *somewhat* accounted for.
Disagree because the lowest common denominator would be VERY low (remember that whole inefficiencies thing?). As such it would be back to my original post. Could we not have public showing of movies because blind people would not be able to see it? Or would we have to also provide sign language interpretation for any public speech? AND THEN, what if the deaf person couldn't understand sign language...how are THEY supposed to be able to receive the benefit? Which leads into the question about the illiterate. If there are some people that can't read, then how are they supposed to be able to understand any of the written law (constitution, etc). Do we have to provide audio transcripts for them? What about the people that can't understand it (not even mentally challenged people, just average people who don't understand legal/technical jargon)? Do we have to provide free education for them on any topic of gov't that they don't understand (we kinda already do...but somehow still have those illiterate people)?
So anyway, kinda ranted a little but the fact still remains that the decisions are pretty much always going to be difficult and someone, somewhere is going to be left out/screwed...again, if you try to accommodate *ALL* then you *WILL* fail as a gov't.
But hopefully the increase in GDP from tape manufacturers would offset the loss due to fraud...
I'm all for equal opportunity and everything. But this exact debate has come up time and time again. How much should the general population be subjected to via gov't mandates to accommodate disabilities?
I'm sure when we began mandating wheel-chair access there was an outcry because the cost of an average building was going to increase by a factor of X. And in all likelihood X would be larger than the returns provided the building owner due to increase sales of to people using the wheel-chair access. So, in that sense we are forcing inefficiencies on businesses (this is just one of the many ways gov't forces itself upon us and we wonder why its hard for businesses to succeed). But now wheel-chair access is an accepted stipulation for all new construction and its costs aren't even directly noticed/tracked. Does that mean that accommodating disabilities is a bad thing? No. Would it be better if it were up to the individual business owner? Maybe, but who would willingly spend money they know would never be recouped...probably no one (except nursing homes, hospitals, etc...because they would actually benefit from that). For a quick tech side-note the same ideas apply to web design (screen-reader friendly design, etc)
So to wrap up a post that could/should go on for a while. Accommodating disabilities does create inefficiencies (don't think there is an argument to that). However, the real question should be whether or not those inefficiencies are acceptable to mandate on society (some are, some aren't). Anyone that thinks we should accommodate ALL, should just go ahead and be deported. Everything would have to be colored black and white (to accommodate color blindness). All visible notices would have to be combined with as audible counterpart (for the blind) because braille would still not accommodate the braille illiterate. You see the point...its hard to determine where the line should be drawn.
I personally don't think the economic impact would be justified due to the fact that we are becoming less and less dependent on physical access to paper money. A better solution would be to either make all ATMs blind accessible (although audible interfaces would be bad for privacy) or provide free braille friendly debit card interfaces (not even sure how that would work). Again, a difficult situation.
When will this become effective? *cough* *cough* one of my friends has an account with some money in it and doesn't want to lose that money...so how long does he have?
Slashdot Mirror
Only on /. would that get modded "Insightful"...
Great points. I learned quite a bit from some very experienced people. However, don't get overly caught in the trap of likemindedness.
What I mean is this. The people and environment you learned in/from is quite possibly ideal. However, just because you've got a room full of smart people that think things through doesn't necessarily mean that they will always come out with the best solutions. They will come out with great solutions, but will likely all have common patterns (a good thing to some extent).
The only way to possibly improve that environment is to bring in some people that think completely differently than your core group of engineers and have them justify their thinking. Have a diverse group of people will create unique solutions and viewpoints...most likely the "innovative" ones.
This isn't intended to contradict what you said. It is just a reminder that having diversity of thought is a Good Thing.
It is easy to "fall deeper and deeper in debt". It is hard to work your way to the top (or middle or wherever). And just because it is hard and MOST choose to not put in the effort to better themselves DOES NOT GIVE THEM THE RIGHT to "desverve" money from me and the other productive members of society (welfare, etc). I am all for welfare, etc to help people who have been As that is what it was designed for and I involuntarily (via taxes) support. Also, I also give voluntarily to charities that help these people as well. But again, my problem is not with those people. I do have a problem with people that are capable of the aforementioned X and choose not to do anything about it. That was and is the point of my rant. You've chosen to nit-pick an area that I tried to exclude from my example/situation.
Maybe in the overall big picture, I have not taken any huge falls, but I have failed in some areas. But what did I do when I did? I kept going instead of complaining about not having a safety net. I really don't know what you mean. Did there used to be one? If so, what happened to it? To quote the great movie Zoolander:
Maury: What do you do, Derrick, when you fall off the horse?
Derrick: (blank stare)
Maury: You get back on the horse!
Derrick: Damn it Maury, I'm a model, not a gymnist!
It could bring a whole new meaning to being "turned on"
Take out a loan, goto college/University. Get a job that pays over the minimum wage, use that extra money you *should* be making to pay off the loan (not buy Celine Dion CD's...haha Canada joke). Once the loan is payed off, SAVE your excess money and either start a business of your own to exploit the people who are willing to accept minimum wage OR move to America, the land of opportunity, where (for some reason people think) life comes easy and you can get paid mega bucks for just being a citizen.
Again, there are some circumstances that don't allow this to apply to everyone. But by and large people are in the situations they allow themselves to get in. If you make minimum wage it is probably your own fault. I've never made minimum wage in my entire life because when I started working (15) I took the necessary action to make myself more valuable (lifeguard training) and started ever so slightly above...but wait, theres more. I took additional training (paid for by my employer) and got additional certifications which (surprisingly) allowed me to increase my pay even more. I continued working my way up and by the time I was a senior in high school I was the head lifeguard. I managed several people and made a pretty good hourly rate. Then I went to college. I didn't have to work my freshman year (insert silver spoon remarks here), but starting my sophomore year, I started working (gaining experience) and continued to do so all the way throughout. When I graduated, I had a great resume and actually ended up getting a job paying higher than the national average for my occupation (computer engineer). I'm not done yet. After I would leave work, I would learn new technologies (skills) partly out of curiosity but also to become more valuable...and guess what? I did. I did some part time work (after my first job) that ended up landing me the job that I have now, which has been great.
Now, let me ask you this? What prevents you or any citizen in a developed country (I guess Canada counts...haha again) outside of laziness and apathy from doing more or less the exact same thing I did?
Does that statement need a point?
I'm actually one of those "just go get a job" type people for just about (I know there are exceptions so don't start in on that) every one that lives in a developed nation. There are so many opportunities but yet apathy and an unfounded sense of entitlement have become entirely too commonplace. That said, most of the people that actually are struggling to meet the cost of not dying really don't have any way of bettering themselves...so I guess that is my point.
FYI, my karma is just fine...excellent to be exact, but thanks for asking/wondering.
First, I agree with you, but lets just see what happens when we substitute a few words...
Why on earth would someone prefer proprietary OS in a computer when one can have those cheap linux/*BSD ones with much more functionality, open standards backed from most hardware leaders, no need for dedicated anti-virus programs, with little system requirements, better support and customization options, plus its free. It is really a no brainer.
In the long run Windows is doomed.
Interesting...don't you think? It isn't technology that matters the most, its marketing/partnerships/business savvy. People know about Vonage and Skype and to some extent aren't "afraid" of it...but asterisk??? For another example, MythTV is superior to TiVo, but guess who is winning that battle?
Again, I don't think you have grasped what I was saying. Not suprisingly...
/. will not make a difference to grandma jane because she has no clue /. even exists.
/. are the same people that are on the support forums. So if that guy shoots his mouth off in here to some other guy that says he's buying windows...do you not think he is going to be the same jackass on the forums when/if grandma jane asks for help there? My guess, yes.
/. after not being competent enough to read through their posts and understand what point they were actually trying to make. I don't want to talk to you no more, you empty headed animal food trough wiper. I fart in your general direction. Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries.
No, the post on
However the same people that are on
So let me summarize life for you. You are a jackass. You call people idiots on
My head hurts
I wasn't talking about corporate people/IT decisions. I was talking about individual consumers wanting to make "the switch" and when they try, people like that guy (and not necessarily on /.) calling them a "fool" doesn't help.
Its always rumored about people being jackasses on mailing lists, support forums, etc. I've been pretty fortunate in my attempts for help...probably because I actually know how to word my questions. However, that type of attitude when someones computer isn't working and all they know how to say is "the screen froze up and gave me an error" doesn't help solve their problem OR help their opinion of linux/the software/FOSS all-together.
The original post was that the people that actually listen to Gates and Ballmer are people that have an interest in the technology. I'm sure you drive a car, but do you listen (or even care to listen) to keynote speeches from auto manufacture CEOs? Probably not unless you are somehow related to cars. Same with *average* consumers and technology leaders...they don't listen to them and don't care. They just want the products to work. And for the most part windows does just that.
Oh yeah, and thanks for the idiot comment. I'm glad to know that you can assess my intellectual capacity from a post that YOU misunderstood.
Granted the president has a lot of power, but it takes a lot more than just him to make any of those actions actually happen. So I won't argue that the past century has had its share of "characters" (or people without it), but I don't think you can put all of the blame on any single person for any of those acts (ok, minus the intern one).
So yes the schmuck on slashdot can cause as much if not more harm to FOSS through his (unfounded) elitist babble than Gates or Ballmer addressing thousands (of their own zealots) and spreading their own fud.
So sorry, no break for you...
I like
Its narrow minded sentiment like this that actually keeps people from switching to linux and its surrounding projects. You called the man a fool for stating a FACT. Instead of negative sentiment about M$ why not just give the reasons/FACTS of why linux and FOSS is a better solution. The results might surprise you, unless the only result that you expect from your generosity is for the people you to help to gain your zealotness.
Go ahead and mod me whatever, I've got karma to burn from making insightful posts...
Isn't that three? When did and or '&' stop becoming a word?
I tried to make sure that I said that it wasn't a black and white issue and that each case needs to be thought through carefully.
I'm not trying to be "disability hating" or harp on the wheel-chair accessibility subject (as it one of many aspects) but do you really think that a majority of publicly accessible buildings actually recoup the costs of making the building wheel-chair accessible from sales of products to people with the need? I could be misguided in my thinking but I would doubt it.
AGAIN, I AM NOT SAYING MAKING BUILDINGS BEING WHEEL-CHAIR ACCESSIBLE IS A BAD THING...BUT...IT DOES CREATE INEFFICIENCIES.
The question isn't whether or not we should accommodate disabilities. The question is, which ones and to what extent. Accommodating ALL is flat out wrong and will fail 100% of the time. Accommodating none is also probably wrong. I don't know what the magic number/percentage/ratio is. In an ideal situation everyone would be equal and this converstaion/issue wouldn't exist/be valid. But since that isn't the case, I would think the next best case would be one where the decision to accommodate would fall more on the service provider. However, most would choose to cut corners/costs and the people who were unfairly disadvantaged would pay the price. However, even then I would hope that they would be accommodated relative to their respective (potential) return.
Wish I had more time for this...as that last little bit needs a lot more explanation.
Agree and disagree.
First, I agree because if you are paying (through taxes) then you should be able to receive the same benefits as everyone else who also pays (taxes). However, (really not sure on this so correct if I am wrong) there a tax breaks, etc for people with disabilities. So in so sense the fact that they can't receive all of the benefits of gov't programs is *somewhat* accounted for.
Disagree because the lowest common denominator would be VERY low (remember that whole inefficiencies thing?). As such it would be back to my original post. Could we not have public showing of movies because blind people would not be able to see it? Or would we have to also provide sign language interpretation for any public speech? AND THEN, what if the deaf person couldn't understand sign language...how are THEY supposed to be able to receive the benefit? Which leads into the question about the illiterate. If there are some people that can't read, then how are they supposed to be able to understand any of the written law (constitution, etc). Do we have to provide audio transcripts for them? What about the people that can't understand it (not even mentally challenged people, just average people who don't understand legal/technical jargon)? Do we have to provide free education for them on any topic of gov't that they don't understand (we kinda already do...but somehow still have those illiterate people)?
So anyway, kinda ranted a little but the fact still remains that the decisions are pretty much always going to be difficult and someone, somewhere is going to be left out/screwed...again, if you try to accommodate *ALL* then you *WILL* fail as a gov't.
Lets go with six. Sigma still sounds foreign and I don't know what it means...
But hopefully the increase in GDP from tape manufacturers would offset the loss due to fraud...
I'm all for equal opportunity and everything. But this exact debate has come up time and time again. How much should the general population be subjected to via gov't mandates to accommodate disabilities?
I'm sure when we began mandating wheel-chair access there was an outcry because the cost of an average building was going to increase by a factor of X. And in all likelihood X would be larger than the returns provided the building owner due to increase sales of to people using the wheel-chair access. So, in that sense we are forcing inefficiencies on businesses (this is just one of the many ways gov't forces itself upon us and we wonder why its hard for businesses to succeed). But now wheel-chair access is an accepted stipulation for all new construction and its costs aren't even directly noticed/tracked. Does that mean that accommodating disabilities is a bad thing? No. Would it be better if it were up to the individual business owner? Maybe, but who would willingly spend money they know would never be recouped...probably no one (except nursing homes, hospitals, etc...because they would actually benefit from that). For a quick tech side-note the same ideas apply to web design (screen-reader friendly design, etc)
So to wrap up a post that could/should go on for a while. Accommodating disabilities does create inefficiencies (don't think there is an argument to that). However, the real question should be whether or not those inefficiencies are acceptable to mandate on society (some are, some aren't). Anyone that thinks we should accommodate ALL, should just go ahead and be deported. Everything would have to be colored black and white (to accommodate color blindness). All visible notices would have to be combined with as audible counterpart (for the blind) because braille would still not accommodate the braille illiterate. You see the point...its hard to determine where the line should be drawn.
I personally don't think the economic impact would be justified due to the fact that we are becoming less and less dependent on physical access to paper money. A better solution would be to either make all ATMs blind accessible (although audible interfaces would be bad for privacy) or provide free braille friendly debit card interfaces (not even sure how that would work). Again, a difficult situation.
When will this become effective? *cough* *cough* one of my friends has an account with some money in it and doesn't want to lose that money...so how long does he have?
Sorry, he was also too lazy to RTFA.
Did you ever see Rambo? I rest my case.
I bet the cargo would get where it was going than on those slow cargo ships too!