3 a : the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually
The website denies use to blind people. Therefore they are not individually discriminating, but categorically discriminating as your dictionary states.
Wouldn't it be cheaper to design such a single site which could be used and read by all manner of devices site instead of providing a plurality of services?
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.
If they just followed good web design practices, they wouldn't have this problem. They made irresponsible choices, and some people are "suffering" for it. There is no good reason why they shouldn't be allowed access to this site, but for the bad choices the designers made.
What if a store with a physical location wouldn't allow blind people in for similar stupid decisions? Should they be forced to change? Unless there is some good reason a particular group should be excluded, there is no reason to discriminate against them.
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.
~ Andrew Carnegie ~
As I've said in this and this post, this is closely related to the discrimination issue. It's a little touchier, but I still think it's close enough to warrant the attention it's getting.
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
One could argue they are discriminating against people with visual disabilities and so are acting against them.
"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
And so laws are there to ensure that people don't do the wrong thing.
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.
If someone's blind, it would seem only fair that southwest has the option of providing them with a dedicated, live concierge to help them with all their questions. That's why they can CALL 1-800-IFLYSWA.
What if someone is deaf and blind? Are they SOL? An alternate phone service is not the answer. The website should be designed to comply to standards which work in all sorts of media, including brail machines which would accomodate the deaf and blind person.
I presume you're being sarcastic here, but you're right. Why should they? Only because the State has decided that it has the right to override the choices made by those companies [...] So you're saying that State coercion, the forcing of people to hire employees they don't want, or do business with customers they don't want, is an example of human decency?
Yes, in some cases it is. What you seem to be misunderstanding is that individuals do not and should not have absolute freedom. Our freedoms are tempered and limited by morals. It is immoral to discriminate against indidivuals based on factors that have nothing whatsoever to do with the situation. Not hiring black people simply because they are black is an example; their skin colour has no impact on their performance. That is the reason for discrimination laws. (though quotas are a ridiculous attempt at solving discrimination)
As for the blind situation, it is similar: sacrificing a minority for the majority. For someone who preaches freedom from State coercion and individuality, you sure seem quick to suppress a minority in favour of the majority. If it were not for the laws, how many places of business would be available to blind or other disabled persons? Practically none I'd bet. So how are these people supposed to get food? How are they supposed to go places? And honestly, how much effort do you think it would take to make the site accessible? I could probably do it in an afternoon. I think you should re-examine the premises of your argument.
While your support of freedom and individuality is admirable, you must keep in mind that most people do not use their freedom responsibly or morally, so the law is there to ensure people do not act irresponsably (that's what it's supposed to do anyway).
Put yourself in their shoes. Would it sit well with you as a kernel developer if, for instance, microsoft was using linux as their development platform for their next OS?
Yes.
What if you knew that they were using it in production with in house changes and additions with out releasing source code?
No problem. Distribution requires source changes to be available, not use.
The open source community will produce a better alternative under the GPL without using their software. Just like Windows is not the developer enviroment for the kernel, BitKeeper will not be the revision control software used for Subversion.
One of the best thigns about this keyboard [...] Remeber the article just recentally here about mouse [...] Furthermore, it is hard to keep your fingers in the correct locations, since, with the exception of two little raised dots, there are no physical boundries between the keys.
Notice how the "(except a computer program)" clause is attached to the "literary work" part? Perhaps it is referring only to computer code, not computer programs themselves. Perhaps this means source licences are still enforceable?
"The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted freely to be expressed. The agitation it produces must be submitted to." ~ Thomas Jefferson ~
If everyone was up in arms about how Congress is [insert corporation's] pansy, then Congress would smarten up real quick. Nowadays, everyone is too lax, believing that 'they are just one person, so what can they possibly do'?
Re:Recycle Bins - don't you just hate them?
on
Undelete In Linux
·
· Score: 2
But still, no matter how long you've been a linux user it's still possible to accidently type "rm core *" rather than "rm core*" and not catch it until half a second after you hit enter and realize that you have irrecoverably destroyed your project(you didn't really want to punish it for segfaulting).
Actually, different scenario for me: I was copying to and from multiple disks and I typed 'rm -rf *' in what I thought was my home directory on the destination drive. In fact it was my original drive and I didn't realize it for a good 5-10 minutes. Since the destination was incompletely copied, I lost a great deal of data. That day, I learned to look at the whole path (not just the last bit) before I type in something that serious again.
"I am a great admirer of Larry Lessig," says Jack Valenti, Hollywood's master lobbyist. "But Congress has the power to say what 'limited' is. It's there, it's unambiguous. Fifty-five men in Philadelphia decided it, and there's no way a court can overrule that."
Umm, I believe the courts can decide that something passed by congress is unconstitutional Jack. The courts can pass judgement on any law that comes before them and strike it down if they please.
"The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted freely to be expressed. The agitation it produces must be submitted to."
~ Thomas Jefferson ~
A fine idea, but not necessarily the moral one:
"It is strangely absurd to suppose that a million of human beings, collected together, are not under the same moral laws which bind each of them separately."
~ Thomas Jefferson ~
Something the **AA and all artists should keep in mind, for it is a battle we are losing ground to on many fronts:
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."
a few minutes in our perception are equivalent to centuries of time on the surface of the neutron star
You have this backwards. Relativity tells us that a few minutes in a powerful gravitational field (such as a neutron star), would be centuries by our standards.
Not quite. Your simplified explanation wouldn't explain why light emitted in the backward direction is also measured as c. You're thinking backwards trying to make sense of relativity and it leads you to the following problem: if time slowed just enough to offset the additional speed in the forward direction, then the backward direction should get a double boost, but it does not.
The advantage to the pencil-and-paper system is that to my knowledge, nobody has developed paper that can cause a mark on its surface to be erased and another mark drawn while the paper is in the ballot box. People can watch the ballot go into the box, they can watch it come out, and be sure that nothing has occurred to change the vote thereupon.
I am not assuming it. There are many situations which have multiple "evil/bad" choices, and only one good choice. I need only provide a counter-example to disprove the assertion that God has free will and is all-good.
Many studies have been done comparing religious and non-religious people, and it's never been found that religious people end up with "better luck" (better health, better livelyhood, better children, etc) that non-religious people.
Some things that are good for you, are not what you had in mind. Not an argument for God, just a point to keep in mind (ie. study was looking for good luck, but good luck may not be what a person needs for "development" or "salvation").
> then ask, "Okay, God is perfect and we're told It will never choose to do evil. So, does God have free will?"
Yes, God can do whatever He wants. He could be an evil God if he wanted. But He doesn't want to do that, because his very nature is good. I mean, I could get on all fours and act like a dog if I wanted, but why would I want to?
By saying God is all good, and thus would only perform good acts, you are essentially saying that He has no free will. He cannot choose from a selection of possibilities, he must always choose the good choice, otherwise He is not all good. One or the other.
Slashdot Mirror
Just a quick answer (I'll get to the rest later):
3 a : the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually
The website denies use to blind people. Therefore they are not individually discriminating, but categorically discriminating as your dictionary states.
Wouldn't it be cheaper to design such a single site which could be used and read by all manner of devices site instead of providing a plurality of services?
If they just followed good web design practices, they wouldn't have this problem. They made irresponsible choices, and some people are "suffering" for it. There is no good reason why they shouldn't be allowed access to this site, but for the bad choices the designers made.
What if a store with a physical location wouldn't allow blind people in for similar stupid decisions? Should they be forced to change? Unless there is some good reason a particular group should be excluded, there is no reason to discriminate against them.
The bottom line is that you feel that it is immoral not to help those in need.
Not at all:
As I've said in this and this post, this is closely related to the discrimination issue. It's a little touchier, but I still think it's close enough to warrant the attention it's getting.
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
One could argue they are discriminating against people with visual disabilities and so are acting against them.
Hence why I mentioned brail machines.
"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
And so laws are there to ensure that people don't do the wrong thing.
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.
If someone's blind, it would seem only fair that southwest has the option of providing them with a dedicated, live concierge to help them with all their questions. That's why they can CALL 1-800-IFLYSWA.
What if someone is deaf and blind? Are they SOL? An alternate phone service is not the answer. The website should be designed to comply to standards which work in all sorts of media, including brail machines which would accomodate the deaf and blind person.
in this case, where the State has decided that blind people are more important than sighted people.
No, the company decided that blind people were less important than sighted people, and the State has told them they are equally important.
I presume you're being sarcastic here, but you're right. Why should they? Only because the State has decided that it has the right to override the choices made by those companies [...] So you're saying that State coercion, the forcing of people to hire employees they don't want, or do business with customers they don't want, is an example of human decency?
Yes, in some cases it is. What you seem to be misunderstanding is that individuals do not and should not have absolute freedom. Our freedoms are tempered and limited by morals. It is immoral to discriminate against indidivuals based on factors that have nothing whatsoever to do with the situation. Not hiring black people simply because they are black is an example; their skin colour has no impact on their performance. That is the reason for discrimination laws. (though quotas are a ridiculous attempt at solving discrimination)
As for the blind situation, it is similar: sacrificing a minority for the majority. For someone who preaches freedom from State coercion and individuality, you sure seem quick to suppress a minority in favour of the majority. If it were not for the laws, how many places of business would be available to blind or other disabled persons? Practically none I'd bet. So how are these people supposed to get food? How are they supposed to go places? And honestly, how much effort do you think it would take to make the site accessible? I could probably do it in an afternoon. I think you should re-examine the premises of your argument.
While your support of freedom and individuality is admirable, you must keep in mind that most people do not use their freedom responsibly or morally, so the law is there to ensure people do not act irresponsably (that's what it's supposed to do anyway).
particularly those without access to a quality television news service.
Isn't that a oxymoron?
But consider: at what point in his education does the average American learn how to educate himself?
The second he/she is born (and probably even before then actually). School then helpfully teaches you how to be stupid as you yourself point out.
Put yourself in their shoes. Would it sit well with you as a kernel developer if, for instance, microsoft was using linux as their development platform for their next OS?
Yes.
What if you knew that they were using it in production with in house changes and additions with out releasing source code?
No problem. Distribution requires source changes to be available, not use.
The open source community will produce a better alternative under the GPL without using their software. Just like Windows is not the developer enviroment for the kernel, BitKeeper will not be the revision control software used for Subversion.
You're right, it's called OpenCM
One of the best thigns about this keyboard [...] Remeber the article just recentally here about mouse [...] Furthermore, it is hard to keep your fingers in the correct locations, since, with the exception of two little raised dots, there are no physical boundries between the keys.
:-)
Hmmm... yes, I see the problem...
Laugh people, it's a joke.
Notice how the "(except a computer program)" clause is attached to the "literary work" part? Perhaps it is referring only to computer code, not computer programs themselves. Perhaps this means source licences are still enforceable?
If everyone was up in arms about how Congress is [insert corporation's] pansy, then Congress would smarten up real quick. Nowadays, everyone is too lax, believing that 'they are just one person, so what can they possibly do'?
But still, no matter how long you've been a linux user it's still possible to accidently type "rm core *" rather than "rm core*" and not catch it until half a second after you hit enter and realize that you have irrecoverably destroyed your project(you didn't really want to punish it for segfaulting).
Actually, different scenario for me: I was copying to and from multiple disks and I typed 'rm -rf *' in what I thought was my home directory on the destination drive. In fact it was my original drive and I didn't realize it for a good 5-10 minutes. Since the destination was incompletely copied, I lost a great deal of data. That day, I learned to look at the whole path (not just the last bit) before I type in something that serious again.
Umm, I believe the courts can decide that something passed by congress is unconstitutional Jack. The courts can pass judgement on any law that comes before them and strike it down if they please.
A fine idea, but not necessarily the moral one:
Something the **AA and all artists should keep in mind, for it is a battle we are losing ground to on many fronts:
Why don't you try picturing skin burning off in a gas fire or explosion? Batteries are far less dangerous than gasoline.
Family Guy is the funniest show I have ever seen in my life. Don't knock it if you don't understand the humour (or just don't find it entertaining).
a few minutes in our perception are equivalent to centuries of time on the surface of the neutron star
You have this backwards. Relativity tells us that a few minutes in a powerful gravitational field (such as a neutron star), would be centuries by our standards.
Not quite. Your simplified explanation wouldn't explain why light emitted in the backward direction is also measured as c. You're thinking backwards trying to make sense of relativity and it leads you to the following problem: if time slowed just enough to offset the additional speed in the forward direction, then the backward direction should get a double boost, but it does not.
The advantage to the pencil-and-paper system is that to my knowledge, nobody has developed paper that can cause a mark on its surface to be erased and another mark drawn while the paper is in the ballot box. People can watch the ballot go into the box, they can watch it come out, and be sure that nothing has occurred to change the vote thereupon.
;-)
rsteele19, Mr. Schrodeinger and his cat, Mr. Schrodinger, rsteele19.
I'm sorry, I'm being pedantic.
I am not assuming it. There are many situations which have multiple "evil/bad" choices, and only one good choice. I need only provide a counter-example to disprove the assertion that God has free will and is all-good.
Many studies have been done comparing religious and non-religious people, and it's never been found that religious people end up with "better luck" (better health, better livelyhood, better children, etc) that non-religious people.
Some things that are good for you, are not what you had in mind. Not an argument for God, just a point to keep in mind (ie. study was looking for good luck, but good luck may not be what a person needs for "development" or "salvation").
> then ask, "Okay, God is perfect and we're told It will never choose to do evil. So, does God have free will?"
Yes, God can do whatever He wants. He could be an evil God if he wanted. But He doesn't want to do that, because his very nature is good. I mean, I could get on all fours and act like a dog if I wanted, but why would I want to?
By saying God is all good, and thus would only perform good acts, you are essentially saying that He has no free will. He cannot choose from a selection of possibilities, he must always choose the good choice, otherwise He is not all good. One or the other.