Planes fly in generally linear paths and have few if any physical obstacles or hazards to avoid on its flight path. If you can invent a way to automatically navigate roads, be able to identify and avoid pedestrians, other vehicles, and detect road conditions, etc. with an autonomous road vehicle then you might want to consider submitting your invention to the DARPA grand challenge. So far only a few autonomous vehicles have managed to navigate the 132-mile course in under 7 hours, which is still far from real-life driving conditions which pose more complicated variable factors such as other road vehicles. There are researchers working on this problem, but it's not as simple as implementing an airliner autopilot system.
Why else wouldn't we implement such technology to allow the blind to drive? If the technology were adequately safe and reliable what reasons would we have not to employ it? I suspect you didn't really think that thought through either as you seem just to be trolling.
The screen reader developers have already solved the problem for the most part. It's not hard to create websites that are accessible with screen readers. Most web designers don't even have to go out of their way to make sure their websites are screen reader accessible. What the disabled community has asked for is simply for the ADA to be applied to websites, which makes complete sense seeing as how integral the web has become to our daily lives. Your suggestion is like saying wheelchair designers should design wheelchairs that can climb stairs or can access any building without the need wheelchair ramps--that it shouldn't be storeowners' responsibility to make their stores & facilities wheelchair accessible. For a better understanding of ADA requirements, read over the phrase you quoted, particularly the last 3 words. Give it a little time to set in...
Well, this ruling doesn't really apply to the mentally disabled.
We obviously don't have the technology to allow the visually impaired to drive just yet, but technology is readily available that allows the blind to surf the web as long as the websites are compliant with accessibility standards--which are neither difficult nor expensive to meet as the article states.
What's being does here is simply the application of Title III--the "Public Accomodations" section--of the Americans with Disabilities Act to the web. They are merely correcting the structural discrimination against the disabled that is all too prevalent on the web. Without such legal actions, the disabled community would simply continue to be denied access to the vast majority of online websites when the situation could easily be rectified with a little legal incentive such as this.
This is as foolish as requiring public buildings and commercial facilities to have wheelchair accessible pathways. The internet is growing to become a more and more vital resource in our society. As such it would be socially irresponsible to continue to allow this kind of discrimination against the disabled to take place.
What the hell does that mean? Gee, college isn't a right either, does that mean it's ok for colleges to discriminate against people based on their being disabled? or how about the color of their skin or their sex? Hotels aren't a right, so wheelchair ramps shouldn't be required either I guess...
Legal protection against discrimination for the disabled are just as important as those for minority ethnic groups and women. Come out of the 50's and start living in the 21st century.
Learn to read. He was pointing out the flaws in the OP's logic, and also demonstrating clear cases following that logic that are illegal by our current legal system. This story is about apply the Americans with Disabilities Act to the web. The ADA was passed to protect the disabled from various forms of discrimination, including discrimination by commercial facilities and public accomodations providing commercial services. So what's so inappropriate about him discussing issues of discrimination here?
Well, here in America discriminating against the disabled is similarly illegal to discriminating against a particular sex or ethnic group. These are seen as necessary societal protections which our nation has a history of enacting. That is why the Americans with Disabilities Act was passed--so that the disabled community would have equal access to public accomodations and commercial facilities providing public accomodations amongst other things.
There are certain rules that you just have to abide by if you want to do commerce in this country, especially conducted in shared public spaces. Even in private communities there may be community regulations that each household needs to follow. That's just the trade-off of being part of a larger community. If you want to truly be able to do whatever the hell you want, go buy an island and live on it alone. You won't have to accomdate the needs others, and there won't be anyone stopping you from being a jackass.
That's nice. I, and I'm sure most people, could care less whether your private website is accessible or not. If you want to be inconsiderate towards the disabled community, that's your right.
But if you actually RTFA, or even just the summary, you'd realize that this issue is about the Americans with Disabilities Act and bringing it up to date with the internet age. Title III of the ADA requires that public accomodations and commercial facilities do not discriminate against the disabled and comply with accessibility standards when readily achievable.
This is no different from stores, restaurants, hotels, and other public accomodations being required to install wheelchair access ramps, braile elevator buttons, etc. so as not to discriminate against the disabled. With the growing popularity and importance of the internet, there's no reason why web-based commercial services and digital accomodations should be exempt from this.
Are you seriously comparing your browser/OS preference with the difficulties the disabled community face in their day-to-day life? Unlike you, a blind person can't overcome their blindness by switching to a different computer. The internet has become a basic necessity in modern life. As such, it's important that considerations be shown towards the disabled community to ensure that they have reasonable access to the web whenever possible. It isn't hard to comply with these accessibility standards, and this issue is more than jsut a slight-annoyance for the disabled community.
What you imagine the web to be is far from what others intend for it or use it for. Providing disability access doesn't limit the usefulness of the internet as a communication medium. In fact, it would ensure better access to a larger population. And lawsuits brought against sites that don't comply with accessibility standards would be the same as lawsuits regarding public buildings without wheelchair access in the early 90's. This sets a legal precedent that would encourage other sites to comply with standards without litigations having to be brought against them.
Your fears are simply too absurd to take seriously.
First off, I doubt most disabled people chose to be disabled. Secondly, it's not hard or expensive to be compliant with accessibility standards, as the summary states. Lastly, I think it's more shameful that people can't be bothered to show a little empathy or consideration towards the disabled community.
Teachers unions protect the rights of teachers--thus making teaching a more desireable vocation. All this hyperbolic neocon garbage about unions being detrimental to industries stems from greed driven industries that just want cheap labor--if this is how school teachers are viewed, then no wonder our school systems attract incompetent teachers. There's nothing wrong with teachers wanting job benefits, a respectable pay, and job security. No matter which state you're in, a union still can't prevent a teacher from being fired for misgivings. If the parents in a community are upset with a particular teacher, they can easily have that teacher removed from that school district. This has been demonstrated again and again, and blatant lies don't change this reality.
Vouchers would eliminate the badly run government "defacto" monopoly we have on education. EVERYTHING the government does is loaded with fraud, politics, costs more, takes longer, and the final result is worse.
Whereas everything Corporate America does is morally upright, without politics, and quick and efficient?
Also, the government doesn't have a monopoly on education. How is our public school system a monopoly? Because ten percent of the students in the U.S. attend private schools, and parents can also homeschool their kids if they want? Just because the state offers an education system so that everyone has access to k-12 education doesn't make it a monopoly. Public schools are usually funded locally and controlled by the local school district which gives local residents and parents of each area strong control of their own school system.
When you take out of the public school budget the costs for "special needs" kids (to make a valid comparison) the private school I send my child to offers a better education (WAY better test scores) in a safer and more caring environment at ONE HALF the cost per student of public school. I can only imagine how good that school would be if they were funded at the same level public school was... Worse, the public school has a massive number of half-days (always Wednesdays and sometimes other days too) that count as full days as far as the government is concerned - it works out that a K-6 student get 1/2 YEAR less education after those 7 years of school.
Some private schools may be "cheaper" than the average per student spending of public schools, but that is due to their being subsidized by funding other than tuition. Also, there are a lot of first rate public schools in the nation, particularly in well off communities as our public school system is largely community-funded and community-dependent. The areas where the school system is failing are inner city schools that are severely underfunded.
IMHO, public schools have gotten a LOT worse since I went. Much more PC "tollerance" crap, and tollerance of poor behavior that used to get kids expelled. We had the police chief announce at a city council meeting that they were being efective in the school and confiscated something like 10 guns, and HUNDREDS of knives in the last year (he actually had them on display at the meeting which I attended.) Despite state law that requires suspension / expulsion, there were NO expulsions and only a handful of suspensions.
What does this have to do with tolerance and political correctness? I suppose being tolerant and being sensitive towards minorities causes kids to bring weapons to school in your opinion?
No, I have no use for public schools at all. Time for them to go.
Yes, let's revert back to an uneducated illiterate society--that's societal progress. Clearly civics aren't being taught very well by the public schools in your area. Forget all the low income families that might not be able to afford to send their kids to private schools. I'm sure our society will greatly benefit from having a less educated population.
The biggest problem with our public schools are people who are selfish and short-sighted--people who are constantly trying to cut our education budget, especially from poorly performing schools, thus increasing the education gap in the nation. If you want to send your kids to a private school, you're free to do so. But without public education we would face a host of other social problems which only popular education can solve.
Firstly, most public school employees don't get paid enough for what they do. The example you cite is a rarity--that's why it's newsworthy. And how are you going to draw teaching talent to public schools if you keep lowering benefits and wages for public shcool employees? You're basically auctioning off the education of our youth to the lowest bidder rather than creating desireable teaching positions and having well-qualified talent compete for it.
The problem is the private sector invading schools and turning our public school systems into "free market" debacles. We have a bunch of technology companies selling schools useless tech which takes away from the budget of much more needed learning implements. Instead of buying better books, subsidizing AP testing costs, hiring more qualified teachers etc. schools end up spending money on useless satelite-synchronized atomic clocks, infrared clickers, new editions of the same books with minor revisions every year, etc. At my high school we even took time out of class to listen to presentations by some company that our school had a contract with to produce class rings and other useless junk.
If anything, our public schools are being run too much like a standard for-profit business. Education should not be approach this way. Students shouldn't be viewed of as mere consumers to reap lucrative profits from. If you want your children's education to be handled by a private entity, send them to a charter school or a private school. Privatizing our education would only be a step back. There's a reason why most developed nations have socialized education.
Care to give an example? Seems to me that schools shouldn't be run like businesses, and most schools have administration/management down alright. It's the lack of funding (funding diverted to other things like defense), privatization of the education sector (turning education into another "free market" for corporate profits) that are the primary issues.
Without identifying what's wrong with our education system how do you go about improving it? As of now one of the major problems with our education system from k-12 to college is its invasion by the private sector. Academic ideals are gradually being supplanted by profit margins and a business-oriented mentality. I hardly think relying on one of the most amorally profit-driven businesses to
devise a school system with public funding will mend the situation.
You distrust the government--an organization which you have some control over as we live in a democratic society--yet you place your faith in a faceless corporation with no cosntituency to answer to and is only concerned about the financial interests of its shareholders? Right, civil servants have no interest in improving our school systems but I'm sure the MBAs in Richmond are all about that rather than trying to embed itself into our school systems to create more opportunities for Microsoft's market growth...
There are citizen-run interest groups that are specifically focused on educational reforms. These organizations may not be as well funded or politically connected as MS, but at least they represent grassroot movements composed of educators, parents, and concerned citizens, not a mulit-billion-dollar corporation whose sole interest is undoubtedly to sell more of its own products through a publicly funded conduit.
No, you're right. I'd compare it more to littering. One or two e-mails isn't a problem for any single person, but the collective resources (technological and human) consumed by hundreds of millions of unsolicited e-mails does have a cost to society. Now, malware I would consider to be comparable to tresspassing. It doesn't have the physical endangerment aspect so shooting someone for digital tresspassing probably wouldn't be justifiable either. But then again I've never been in favor of these laws that encourage a shoot first, ask questions later attitude.
By your logic all privacy settings on websites/online networks are useless. Just because person A can relay a message to person B doesn't mean that I can't expect to be able to tell person A something in confidence without person B finding out. And it certainly doesn't mean that if I tell person A something, it's exactly the same as me telling both parties.
Unless you associate with a bunch of sociopaths you can expect a certain level of common courtesy amongst your peers.
I'm not talking for others. I'm stating a common cultural practice. Perhaps when you have business cards made for yourself and your organization you should consider how others treat/use business cards. They certainly aren't treated as personal communiques or sensitive/confidential personal information like letters. If you don't want a particular contact to get out, don't put it on your business cards. It's customary to put your public business contacts on a card, and if you want to give a particular person more private contact info you write it on the back of the card.
And what is this rubbish about copyright? People aren't trying to profit off of your precious business card design. What is being traded here is contact info. It just makes the most sense to present your company's contact in the manner that it's presented on a business card since that's a graphical representation that you've chosen for yourself. If I've invested the time and money to have a business card designed, then I'd sure as hell like for my contact info to be presented to potential business partners in this manner when someone else puts my contact out there. I'm the one benefitting from the design and the impression it makes on potential business partners.
It seems like these days we can't do two things without some minority yelping about their privacy or copyright being violated. Even when a particular practice or service benefits us, we seem to be more concerned that someone else may also be benefiting from us directly/indirectly rather than just accepting that it's a mutually beneficial arrangement. It's like the record companies complaining about file sharing when it's a huge boon to the music industry in terms of the marketing/advertising value it possesses and how much more business it's shown to generate. I can't even classify this as simply selfishness. It's like some people are just naturally bitter human beings who can't stand the idea of others benefiting from them somehow.
Is that alright? Should that be permitted by the U.S. government? A have a feeling that this kind of precedent would prohibit a lot of Americans from visiting China and other nations with different laws than the U.S.
Slashdot Mirror
What does that have to do with utilitarianism?
Why, because people who have good credit are more honest than people with bad credit?
You seem to have a very poor grasp on reality...
Planes fly in generally linear paths and have few if any physical obstacles or hazards to avoid on its flight path. If you can invent a way to automatically navigate roads, be able to identify and avoid pedestrians, other vehicles, and detect road conditions, etc. with an autonomous road vehicle then you might want to consider submitting your invention to the DARPA grand challenge. So far only a few autonomous vehicles have managed to navigate the 132-mile course in under 7 hours, which is still far from real-life driving conditions which pose more complicated variable factors such as other road vehicles. There are researchers working on this problem, but it's not as simple as implementing an airliner autopilot system.
Why else wouldn't we implement such technology to allow the blind to drive? If the technology were adequately safe and reliable what reasons would we have not to employ it? I suspect you didn't really think that thought through either as you seem just to be trolling.
The screen reader developers have already solved the problem for the most part. It's not hard to create websites that are accessible with screen readers. Most web designers don't even have to go out of their way to make sure their websites are screen reader accessible. What the disabled community has asked for is simply for the ADA to be applied to websites, which makes complete sense seeing as how integral the web has become to our daily lives. Your suggestion is like saying wheelchair designers should design wheelchairs that can climb stairs or can access any building without the need wheelchair ramps--that it shouldn't be storeowners' responsibility to make their stores & facilities wheelchair accessible. For a better understanding of ADA requirements, read over the phrase you quoted, particularly the last 3 words. Give it a little time to set in...
Well, this ruling doesn't really apply to the mentally disabled.
We obviously don't have the technology to allow the visually impaired to drive just yet, but technology is readily available that allows the blind to surf the web as long as the websites are compliant with accessibility standards--which are neither difficult nor expensive to meet as the article states.
What's being does here is simply the application of Title III--the "Public Accomodations" section--of the Americans with Disabilities Act to the web. They are merely correcting the structural discrimination against the disabled that is all too prevalent on the web. Without such legal actions, the disabled community would simply continue to be denied access to the vast majority of online websites when the situation could easily be rectified with a little legal incentive such as this.
This is as foolish as requiring public buildings and commercial facilities to have wheelchair accessible pathways. The internet is growing to become a more and more vital resource in our society. As such it would be socially irresponsible to continue to allow this kind of discrimination against the disabled to take place.
What the hell does that mean? Gee, college isn't a right either, does that mean it's ok for colleges to discriminate against people based on their being disabled? or how about the color of their skin or their sex? Hotels aren't a right, so wheelchair ramps shouldn't be required either I guess...
Legal protection against discrimination for the disabled are just as important as those for minority ethnic groups and women. Come out of the 50's and start living in the 21st century.
Learn to read. He was pointing out the flaws in the OP's logic, and also demonstrating clear cases following that logic that are illegal by our current legal system. This story is about apply the Americans with Disabilities Act to the web. The ADA was passed to protect the disabled from various forms of discrimination, including discrimination by commercial facilities and public accomodations providing commercial services. So what's so inappropriate about him discussing issues of discrimination here?
Well, here in America discriminating against the disabled is similarly illegal to discriminating against a particular sex or ethnic group. These are seen as necessary societal protections which our nation has a history of enacting. That is why the Americans with Disabilities Act was passed--so that the disabled community would have equal access to public accomodations and commercial facilities providing public accomodations amongst other things.
There are certain rules that you just have to abide by if you want to do commerce in this country, especially conducted in shared public spaces. Even in private communities there may be community regulations that each household needs to follow. That's just the trade-off of being part of a larger community. If you want to truly be able to do whatever the hell you want, go buy an island and live on it alone. You won't have to accomdate the needs others, and there won't be anyone stopping you from being a jackass.
You view a page to read its content. Are you that dumb?
That's nice. I, and I'm sure most people, could care less whether your private website is accessible or not. If you want to be inconsiderate towards the disabled community, that's your right.
But if you actually RTFA, or even just the summary, you'd realize that this issue is about the Americans with Disabilities Act and bringing it up to date with the internet age. Title III of the ADA requires that public accomodations and commercial facilities do not discriminate against the disabled and comply with accessibility standards when readily achievable.
This is no different from stores, restaurants, hotels, and other public accomodations being required to install wheelchair access ramps, braile elevator buttons, etc. so as not to discriminate against the disabled. With the growing popularity and importance of the internet, there's no reason why web-based commercial services and digital accomodations should be exempt from this.
Are you seriously comparing your browser/OS preference with the difficulties the disabled community face in their day-to-day life? Unlike you, a blind person can't overcome their blindness by switching to a different computer. The internet has become a basic necessity in modern life. As such, it's important that considerations be shown towards the disabled community to ensure that they have reasonable access to the web whenever possible. It isn't hard to comply with these accessibility standards, and this issue is more than jsut a slight-annoyance for the disabled community.
What you imagine the web to be is far from what others intend for it or use it for. Providing disability access doesn't limit the usefulness of the internet as a communication medium. In fact, it would ensure better access to a larger population. And lawsuits brought against sites that don't comply with accessibility standards would be the same as lawsuits regarding public buildings without wheelchair access in the early 90's. This sets a legal precedent that would encourage other sites to comply with standards without litigations having to be brought against them.
Your fears are simply too absurd to take seriously.
First off, I doubt most disabled people chose to be disabled. Secondly, it's not hard or expensive to be compliant with accessibility standards, as the summary states. Lastly, I think it's more shameful that people can't be bothered to show a little empathy or consideration towards the disabled community.
Teachers unions protect the rights of teachers--thus making teaching a more desireable vocation. All this hyperbolic neocon garbage about unions being detrimental to industries stems from greed driven industries that just want cheap labor--if this is how school teachers are viewed, then no wonder our school systems attract incompetent teachers. There's nothing wrong with teachers wanting job benefits, a respectable pay, and job security. No matter which state you're in, a union still can't prevent a teacher from being fired for misgivings. If the parents in a community are upset with a particular teacher, they can easily have that teacher removed from that school district. This has been demonstrated again and again, and blatant lies don't change this reality.
Then that has nothing to do with being politically correct now does it?
Whereas everything Corporate America does is morally upright, without politics, and quick and efficient?
Also, the government doesn't have a monopoly on education. How is our public school system a monopoly? Because ten percent of the students in the U.S. attend private schools, and parents can also homeschool their kids if they want? Just because the state offers an education system so that everyone has access to k-12 education doesn't make it a monopoly. Public schools are usually funded locally and controlled by the local school district which gives local residents and parents of each area strong control of their own school system.
Some private schools may be "cheaper" than the average per student spending of public schools, but that is due to their being subsidized by funding other than tuition. Also, there are a lot of first rate public schools in the nation, particularly in well off communities as our public school system is largely community-funded and community-dependent. The areas where the school system is failing are inner city schools that are severely underfunded.
What does this have to do with tolerance and political correctness? I suppose being tolerant and being sensitive towards minorities causes kids to bring weapons to school in your opinion?
Yes, let's revert back to an uneducated illiterate society--that's societal progress. Clearly civics aren't being taught very well by the public schools in your area. Forget all the low income families that might not be able to afford to send their kids to private schools. I'm sure our society will greatly benefit from having a less educated population.
The biggest problem with our public schools are people who are selfish and short-sighted--people who are constantly trying to cut our education budget, especially from poorly performing schools, thus increasing the education gap in the nation. If you want to send your kids to a private school, you're free to do so. But without public education we would face a host of other social problems which only popular education can solve.
Firstly, most public school employees don't get paid enough for what they do. The example you cite is a rarity--that's why it's newsworthy. And how are you going to draw teaching talent to public schools if you keep lowering benefits and wages for public shcool employees? You're basically auctioning off the education of our youth to the lowest bidder rather than creating desireable teaching positions and having well-qualified talent compete for it.
The problem is the private sector invading schools and turning our public school systems into "free market" debacles. We have a bunch of technology companies selling schools useless tech which takes away from the budget of much more needed learning implements. Instead of buying better books, subsidizing AP testing costs, hiring more qualified teachers etc. schools end up spending money on useless satelite-synchronized atomic clocks, infrared clickers, new editions of the same books with minor revisions every year, etc. At my high school we even took time out of class to listen to presentations by some company that our school had a contract with to produce class rings and other useless junk.
If anything, our public schools are being run too much like a standard for-profit business. Education should not be approach this way. Students shouldn't be viewed of as mere consumers to reap lucrative profits from. If you want your children's education to be handled by a private entity, send them to a charter school or a private school. Privatizing our education would only be a step back. There's a reason why most developed nations have socialized education.
Care to give an example? Seems to me that schools shouldn't be run like businesses, and most schools have administration/management down alright. It's the lack of funding (funding diverted to other things like defense), privatization of the education sector (turning education into another "free market" for corporate profits) that are the primary issues.
Without identifying what's wrong with our education system how do you go about improving it? As of now one of the major problems with our education system from k-12 to college is its invasion by the private sector. Academic ideals are gradually being supplanted by profit margins and a business-oriented mentality. I hardly think relying on one of the most amorally profit-driven businesses to devise a school system with public funding will mend the situation.
You distrust the government--an organization which you have some control over as we live in a democratic society--yet you place your faith in a faceless corporation with no cosntituency to answer to and is only concerned about the financial interests of its shareholders? Right, civil servants have no interest in improving our school systems but I'm sure the MBAs in Richmond are all about that rather than trying to embed itself into our school systems to create more opportunities for Microsoft's market growth...
There are citizen-run interest groups that are specifically focused on educational reforms. These organizations may not be as well funded or politically connected as MS, but at least they represent grassroot movements composed of educators, parents, and concerned citizens, not a mulit-billion-dollar corporation whose sole interest is undoubtedly to sell more of its own products through a publicly funded conduit.
Well, sometimes drug dealers will own a personal cell and then use a pre-paid phone that's constantly changed for handling "business" ...or so I hear.
No, you're right. I'd compare it more to littering. One or two e-mails isn't a problem for any single person, but the collective resources (technological and human) consumed by hundreds of millions of unsolicited e-mails does have a cost to society. Now, malware I would consider to be comparable to tresspassing. It doesn't have the physical endangerment aspect so shooting someone for digital tresspassing probably wouldn't be justifiable either. But then again I've never been in favor of these laws that encourage a shoot first, ask questions later attitude.
By your logic all privacy settings on websites/online networks are useless. Just because person A can relay a message to person B doesn't mean that I can't expect to be able to tell person A something in confidence without person B finding out. And it certainly doesn't mean that if I tell person A something, it's exactly the same as me telling both parties.
Unless you associate with a bunch of sociopaths you can expect a certain level of common courtesy amongst your peers.
I'm not talking for others. I'm stating a common cultural practice. Perhaps when you have business cards made for yourself and your organization you should consider how others treat/use business cards. They certainly aren't treated as personal communiques or sensitive/confidential personal information like letters. If you don't want a particular contact to get out, don't put it on your business cards. It's customary to put your public business contacts on a card, and if you want to give a particular person more private contact info you write it on the back of the card.
And what is this rubbish about copyright? People aren't trying to profit off of your precious business card design. What is being traded here is contact info. It just makes the most sense to present your company's contact in the manner that it's presented on a business card since that's a graphical representation that you've chosen for yourself. If I've invested the time and money to have a business card designed, then I'd sure as hell like for my contact info to be presented to potential business partners in this manner when someone else puts my contact out there. I'm the one benefitting from the design and the impression it makes on potential business partners.
It seems like these days we can't do two things without some minority yelping about their privacy or copyright being violated. Even when a particular practice or service benefits us, we seem to be more concerned that someone else may also be benefiting from us directly/indirectly rather than just accepting that it's a mutually beneficial arrangement. It's like the record companies complaining about file sharing when it's a huge boon to the music industry in terms of the marketing/advertising value it possesses and how much more business it's shown to generate. I can't even classify this as simply selfishness. It's like some people are just naturally bitter human beings who can't stand the idea of others benefiting from them somehow.
Is that alright? Should that be permitted by the U.S. government? A have a feeling that this kind of precedent would prohibit a lot of Americans from visiting China and other nations with different laws than the U.S.
So when does the Chinese government start arresting American webmasters for putting up information that is banished by Chinese law?