We can't correct the spelling errors
-
@Arnavion said:
@eViLegion said:
They're the ones booing until the entire world accommodates them. Only, they're not saying "please go away", they're saying "come over here and do this stuff for me... no we wont pay you".
Yeah man. How dare those blind people not complain about evilLegion's website being unusable on a screen reader. Don't they know that being blind means they're not allowed to access evilLegion's websites, because evilLegion not only isn't "prepared to help" but actively gets annoyed at being told his deficient product is deficient?
But the point is that they ARE allowed. No-one is stopping them, except the laws of physics. If they want a product improved so that they can use it, maybe they should pay for the improvements. If large organisations have the money to pay for lawyers to sue, why don't they just spend the money paying the developers to do what they want?
No other section of society is allowed to dictate what others do, and the timetable by which they do it, for free.
No-one has yet come up with a convincing argument why people shouldn't have the freedom to say "No, I'm using my time and money to do what I want, and I'm not stopping you from using your time and money to do what you want. Please have the same consideration."
Maybe you believe that people shouldn't have the freedom to do what they want (so long as they don't interfere with others), and should in fact be compelled do what someone else tells them to do? Is this the case... should one group of people have a right, enshrined in law, to dictate what another group do, with legal penalties if they don't? That's pretty fucking dangerous, don't you think?
-
@eViLegion said:
No other section of society is allowed to dictate what others do, and the timetable by which they do it, for free.
What are you talking about? Wheelchair ramps. Seriously. You know how much work it takes to make a website more usable by a screen reader? Not using flash or one giant image, and putting an alt text on your images.
-
eVilLegion has to just be trolling by now. Nobody could be that much of a dick.
-
@blakeyrat said:
eVilLegion has to just be trolling by now. Nobody could be that much of a dick.Uh, I know you are a reptile person and so may not be fully aware of what humans are like but I assure you it not only is possible, but is likely.
-
@blakeyrat said:
eVilLegion has to just be trolling by now. Nobody could be that much of a dick.
No, I take personal freedom very seriously, and obviously you prefer a situation where people are dictated to. Typical left wing response is to label any disagreement as dickishness, especially when they've run out of arguments that support their position.
Since I've actually maintained at least some semblance of respectable debate, and you've simply devolved into nothing more than name calling, I'd say you have to be trolling by now, except I get the feeling that you're genuinely foaming at the mouth with hatred.
Oh well, there's nothing more to be gained by continuing debate with someone so needlessly aggressive as yourself, so I bid you have a lovely weekend.
-
@Sutherlands said:
@eViLegion said:
No other section of society is allowed to dictate what others do, and the timetable by which they do it, for free.
What are you talking about? Wheelchair ramps. Seriously. You know how much work it takes to make a website more usable by a screen reader? Not using flash or one giant image, and putting an alt text on your images.Its not a question of the amount of work. Its the principle of being free to do what you want to do, how you want to do it, without people (whose business it is none of) dictating the terms of how you do it, and threatening you with legal action if you don't.
-
@Sutherlands said:
@eViLegion said:
No other section of society is allowed to dictate what others do, and the timetable by which they do it, for free.
What are you talking about? Wheelchair ramps. Seriously. You know how much work it takes to make a website more usable by a screen reader? Not using flash or one giant image, and putting an alt text on your images.
QFT. It's a never-ending struggle between me and the graphic designer. When I mentioned the accessibility issue, she wanted to know how many of our users are blind. FFS, woman, that's not the point.
-
I'd just like to point out that the last case I know of dealing with the ADA conjunction with websites http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Access_Now_v._Southwest_Airlines held that the ADA doesn't apply to things without a physical location. There may be something more recent, or with greater authority, but I don't know about it, and I read Access Now four years ago. I'd have to pay for lexis or westlaw (or sneak into the local law library) to find out more, but I'm not a lawyer so fuckit.
Anyway, I understand where EvilLegion is coming from. I don't entirely agree with him, mostly because we have other laws about what you can and can't do anyway, so adding reasonable and common sense standards for accessibility isn't really any worse than regulations preventing fraud, or saying that websites have to be careful when storing credit card numbers. EvilLegion seems to be a fairly anarchic libertarian though, so I presume has an issue with those laws as well. But I can certainly understand and sympathize with wanting to limit the amount of regulations that we have restricting our behavior.
-
@eViLegion said:
Its the principle of being free to do what you want to do, how you want to do it, without people (whose business it is none of) dictating the terms of how you do it, and threatening you with legal action if you don't.
Except that all of this is complete bollocks. I'm sorry, man, but not always having the freedom to do whatever you want is just part of reality. Hence my a bloo bloo post earlier, since you were making a child's argument with a man's command of language, and you still are and think it's not a problem!
You can't do whatever you want. You have to take other people's needs into account. Except when they're offended. Then they can go fuck themselves.
-
@Snooder said:
EvilLegion seems to be a fairly anarchic libertarian though, so I presume has an issue with those laws as well. But I can certainly understand and sympathize with wanting to limit the amount of regulations that we have restricting our behavior.
Libertarian, certainly.
But actually I fully agree with laws to prevent fraud, because fraud is an act where you are explicitly dicking someone else over for personal gain, and should be prevented if possible.
I would also fully agree with laws governing the security of credit card data, since companies choose to store that data when they don't strictly need to, and have been paid by the customer for some kind of product or service. So they have chosen to decrease the security of their customers sensitive data (even if the customers have ticked a box saying its OK), as such it is clear that the onus is on such companies to not fuck up, and a contract between them and the owner of the data to that effect.
-
@dhromed said:
You can't do whatever you want. You have to take other people's needs into account.
So long as I'm not hurting anyone else, what right of it is yours to tell me that I may not do something?
So long as I'm not hurting anyone else, why should I take other peoples needs into account?
Should I provide housing for the homeless, then? Food to every passing stranger?
Is it now my responsibility to ensure that terminal cancer patients get a high level of palliative care?
Or, perhaps, is it more reasonable for me to simply go about my day, in the natural way people do, attempting not to tread on other people toes, and expecting the same consideration from them in return?
If I was saying that all disabled people should be burned in a ditch, and their property confiscated so that there's more stuff for the rest of us, then I can understand why you'd be upset with that sentiment... it would be abhorrent. But it is absolutely not my responsibility to look after all the underdogs of the world... its is occasionally my choice to do so, as it is occasionally my choice not to.
Can you provide one shred of reason why it is my responsibility?
-
@eViLegion said:
@dhromed said:
You can't do whatever you want. You have to take other people's needs into account.
So long as I'm not hurting anyone else, what right of it is yours to tell me that I may not do something?
What's your take on "consensual crime"? Eg. unsanctioned gambling, recreational drug use, prostitution. Any prohibited activity where all persons involved are willing participants.
-
@eViLegion said:
@dhromed said:
You can't do whatever you want. You have to take other people's needs into account.
So long as I'm not hurting anyone else, why should I take other peoples needs into account?That one gets slippery as "not hurting" can be read so many different ways. For example, parking in the middle of the freeway isn't attacking someone but causes the kind of disruption that can be taken as harm. However saying that it is causing harm puts your selfish definition of freedom quickly on the path back to restrictions you seem to have a problem with (note: I may be reading into your arguments differently than you intend).
-
@eViLegion said:
@dhromed said:
You can't do whatever you want. You have to take other people's needs into account.
So long as I'm not hurting anyone else, what right of it is yours to tell me that I may not do something?
So long as I'm not hurting anyone else, why should I take other peoples needs into account?
Should I provide housing for the homeless, then? Food to every passing stranger?
Is it now my responsibility to ensure that terminal cancer patients get a high level of palliative care?
Can you provide one shred of reason why it is my responsibility?Because as a business owner, you have a responsibility to provide a certain level of service to your customers. Having to provide accessibility falls into the same section of corporate responsibility as having to provide railings, or making sure you follow fire safety or zoning ordinances. Or, as noted earlier, making sure that you don't leave a bunch of credit card information lying around for people to steal. Because while failing to do these things isn't directly hurting anyone, the lack of them creates a detrimental effect on the person who needed it when he didn't get it.
It's one thing if you are against any sort of rules at all. But to be perfectly ok with other rules that might benefit you (anti-fraud, privacy protection) but then have a problem with rules that don't benefit you is just hypocrisy.
-
@joe.edwards said:
@eViLegion said:
@dhromed said:
You can't do whatever you want. You have to take other people's needs into account.
So long as I'm not hurting anyone else, what right of it is yours to tell me that I may not do something?
What's your take on "consensual crime"? Eg. unsanctioned gambling, recreational drug use, prostitution. Any prohibited activity where all persons involved are willing participants.
Remember, EvilLegion lives in the UK. Laws are different there. IIRC recreational drug use and prostitution are both legal within certain boundaries in the UK.
-
@joe.edwards said:
@eViLegion said:
@dhromed said:
You can't do whatever you want. You have to take other people's needs into account.
So long as I'm not hurting anyone else, what right of it is yours to tell me that I may not do something?
What's your take on "consensual crime"? Eg. unsanctioned gambling, recreational drug use, prostitution. Any prohibited activity where all persons involved are willing participants.That for no-one to say but the people involved.
I find gambling and prostitution to be distasteful, but I don't see it as my place to tell anyone not to do it. Its none of my fucking business.
-
@Snooder said:
Remember, EvilLegion lives in the UK. Laws are different there. IIRC recreational drug use and prostitution are both legal within certain boundaries in the UK.
They're really not.
-
Parking in the middle of the freeway is obviously harming someone, because by doing so you have put an obstacle directly in the path of a vehicle that, at its expected velocity, will in all likelyhood not be able to brake in time before colliding it. In addition, there's no good reason for parking in the middle of the freeway... the only purpose would be to intentionally cause a massive crash.
Simply not making your website easier to read isn't causing a disruption. Someone telling you "you must make your website easier to read" IS causing disruption.
What is freedom, if not deciding for ones self? How can it not be selfish? Freedom is the ability to decide for ones self, to have the choice to be selfish or not. If someones making you choose to not be selfish, then its not a choice, its not freedom, and its CERTAINLY not selfish... it is motivated by the desire not to get sued/prosecuted.
-
@eViLegion said:
@joe.edwards said:
@eViLegion said:
That for no-one to say but the people involved.So long as I'm not hurting anyone else, what right of it is yours to tell me that I may not do something?
What's your take on "consensual crime"? Eg. unsanctioned gambling, recreational drug use, prostitution. Any prohibited activity where all persons involved are willing participants.Uh, but you also said that:
@eViLegion said:
But actually I fully agree with laws to prevent fraud, because fraud is an act where you are explicitly dicking someone else over for personal gain, and should be prevented if possible.
I would also fully agree with laws governing the security of credit card data, since companies choose to store that data when they don't strictly need to, and have been paid by the customer for some kind of product or service.Entering some kind of transaction with a company would be under the same heading as the "consensual crime" listed above, but yet you want to restrict the conditions ("we will hold onto payment data") allowed for those kinds of transactions. I can think of a way or two to justify that, but I'm interested in what you use to justify the contradiction.
-
@eViLegion said:
Parking in the middle of the freeway is obviously harming someone
OK, so we are allowed to restrict that?
@eViLegion said:
by doing so you have put an obstacle directly in the path of a vehicle that, at its expected velocity, will in all likelyhood not be able to brake in time before colliding it.
So what you did is likely to cause some harm and thus it should be restricted. I'm trying to find where your boundries are, so what about something like a fire alarm that just does sound? That wouldn't work for someone who has a hearing imparment (depending on volume), so is it fine for your appartment? Is it fine for an appartment being rented out? A public place? Different rules for different places or does the same apply to everywhere?
-
I may be feeding a troll but here goes anyway.
@eViLegion said:
So long as I'm not hurting anyone else, what right of it is yours to tell me that I may not do something?
Because you are part of a community you selfish prick.
In a community you do stuff that costs you in order to make a stronger community. You pay part of your income to the city/state/country/whatever. In return, fire engines come to your house, and to the houses of other members of the community. The roads are paved and level. The water and electricity get to your house. The police arrest criminals before they break into your house and steal your stuff. The country's military and intelligence agencies stop many threats to the country before those threats are realised. There is a pretty good chance that when you wake up tomorrow morning the government will be the same as it was when you went to bed.
If you have more money than your neighbours then yes, you help them! You provide for their housing and feeding (either directly through charity or indirectly through taxes and/or tithes). If you own a business then yes, you pay the money to install a wheelchair ramp. Why? First, it means that when life shits on you then someone else provides for you. Second, when those people get out of the bad situation they contribute to the society themselves, making the whole society stronger. Third, because it is the decent human thing to do!
EvilLegion, you sound like one of those rich, healthy, materialistic "libertarians" for whom libertarianism simply means "I get to do what I want and the poor can go fuck themselves". I call you on the strength of your convictions and challenge you to go an live in a place where that attitude really applies. I suggest northern Afghanistan or Somalia or many other places in the world where law and order has broken down and the social contract no longer applies.
Short answer: Can I provide one shred of reason why it is your responsibility? Yes. It is because acting that way is the sign of a responsible member of a community. If you are not willing to act that way and contribute to the community then you shouldn't be accepting the benefits of being part of the community.
I'm not normally a fan of pithy sayings but sometimes they are appropriate. Freedom of speech does not give you the right to yell 'fire" in a crowded theatre.
-
@havokk said:
Short answer: Can I provide one shred of reason why it is your responsibility? Yes. It is because acting that way is the sign of a responsible member of a community. If you are not willing to act that way and contribute to the community then you shouldn't be accepting the benefits of being part of the community.
Freedom of speech does not give you the right to yell 'fire" in a crowded theatre.
I pay my taxes. In fact, I have paid considerably more in tax than average. Do I now have to go out and spend my time on other people that I've never met before as well? Or can I just ignore them, because I'd rather ignore them and quietly get on with doing my own thing that isn't affecting anyone else.
Should other people with less than me, also be compelled to come and help me out in return? Do I now automatically owe someone else my time because I have more money than them, or perhaps because they have a congenital condition which likely gives them less time in total than I have?
I'm not yelling fire in a crowded theatre, so its not appropriate at all.
Anyway, this isn't about freedom of speech, this is about freedom of action... I rather think I ought to be free to write software in my own time, for fun, and not be compelled to write it in any other way than the way I want to write it. Do you have a problem with me doing that?
Remember, this is the crux of the discussion: blakey insisted that ALL technology must be made to be accessible, and I'm saying that I really don't feel that blanket statement is at all reasonable.(Edit: I love how you say you're feeding a troll, then start with a sentence calling him a prick. Situational irony much?)
-
-
@havokk said:
If you have more money than your neighbours then yes, you help them! You provide for their housing and feeding (either directly through charity or indirectly through taxes and/or tithes). If you own a business then yes, you pay the money to install a wheelchair ramp. Why? First, it means that when life shits on you then someone else provides for you. Second, when those people get out of the bad situation they contribute to the society themselves, making the whole society stronger. Third, because it is the decent human thing to do!
EvilLegion, you sound like one of those rich, healthy, materialistic "libertarians" for whom libertarianism simply means "I get to do what I want and the poor can go fuck themselves". I call you on the strength of your convictions and challenge you to go an live in a place where that attitude really applies. I suggest northern Afghanistan or Somalia or many other places in the world where law and order has broken down and the social contract no longer applies.
So, what you have described is the welfare state, where taxation is used to provide a number of community services. That's fair enough. It is a centralized system which should in theory be unbiased and fairly distributed. That tax pays for a variety of organisations which actually do the work required to help whoever they're supposed to help. The point is that you cannot compel people to spend their time doing stuff they don't want to do (because that is basically slavery), so instead you compel them to pay tax, and use the tax to pay for other people to do what needs doing.
Why do you think I want to go somewhere where law and order has broken down? That doesn't follow from what I've been saying at all. I'm not in favour of harming people. I'm in favour of being allowed to do what I want, so long as it DOESN'T harm people. If law and order have broken down, that's obviously harming people. I really don't see how getting to spend my time doing what I want is going to lead to the breakdown of law and order. Perhaps if what I want is to steal peoples stuff, rape women, and kill anyone who complains about it, but then that is obviously doing others harm, and I've made it quite clear that isn't acceptable.
-
@eViLegion said:
Anyway, this isn't about freedom of speech, this is about freedom of action... I rather think I ought to be free to write software in my own time, for fun, and not be compelled to write it in any other way than the way I want to write it. Do you have a problem with me doing that?
What's the point of writing software you don't expect anybody to use?
If you do expect people to use it, why wouldn't you make it as accessible as possible? Because it's slightly more work? Oh poor baby.
@eViLegion said:
Remember, this is the crux of the discussion: blakey insisted that ALL technology must be made to be accessible,
I never said that. Quote me. I dare you.
@eViLegion said:
(Edit: I love how you say you're feeding a troll, then start with a sentence calling him a prick. Situational irony much?)
Prick is an insult, not a troll. No irony here.
-
@locallunatic said:
@eViLegion said:
Parking in the middle of the freeway is obviously harming someone
OK, so we are allowed to restrict that?
@eViLegion said:
by doing so you have put an obstacle directly in the path of a vehicle that, at its expected velocity, will in all likelyhood not be able to brake in time before colliding it.
So what you did is likely to cause some harm and thus it should be restricted. I'm trying to find where your boundries are, so what about something like a fire alarm that just does sound? That wouldn't work for someone who has a hearing imparment (depending on volume), so is it fine for your appartment? Is it fine for an appartment being rented out? A public place? Different rules for different places or does the same apply to everywhere?
In most cases, a sound-based alarm will be sufficient. It is appropriate to include such alarms in buildings because it covers the most common case... that is people can hear it. If you're hard of hearing, and you move into an apartment building, then in my opinion it is your responsibility to fit your apartment with a visual alarm if you need it. Most western governments already provide some measure of assistance so that people with disabilities can get the additional equipment they need and adaptations made so that they can move into new apartments.
It is not reasonable to make EVERY alarm a visual alarm, because it would mean installing more alarms, each at greater expense, when they're mostly not necessary.@locallunatic said:
Entering some kind of transaction with a company would be under the same heading as the "consensual crime" listed above, but yet you want to restrict the conditions ("we will hold onto payment data") allowed for those kinds of transactions. I can think of a way or two to justify that, but I'm interested in what you use to justify the contradiction.
I would argue that the consensual aspect of this is too simplistic a concept. The consensus is about handing over payment in exchange for profit. This is facilitated by handing over sensitive CC information owned by the customer, but it is not the primary concern of that customer.
Now, in order to make it clear what a company may or may not do with such information, there would need to be a colossal page of small print presented for the customer to read. No-one reads those things, and perhaps they "should" but it is beyond reasonable to expect people to do that (and in fact courts have basically ruled on that being the case).
Customers do however have a naive understanding of how these things should work... most will agree that the CC info should only be used by that company, for transactions with this customer. To use that information in any other way MIGHT be technically agreed upon by such customers because they ticked (or didn't tick) some box on the payment form, but no customer fully informed of the consequences would make that decision because it is patently unfair and not in the customers interests; a legal aspect of contracts is that they must be fair.
The simplest solution is to specify a legal framework for exactly how that CC data must be handled, which both allows it to be used as required, and fits in with the expectation that is the only way it will be used. Now, even if we didn't legislate, any company that doesn't comply is open to being sued because the onus is clearly on them to keep that data secure (since they don't own it, and they only took it because they wanted some of the customers money), so you might as well legislate as by doing so you protect both the companies and the consumer.
-
@havokk said:
I'm not normally a fan of pithy sayings but sometimes they are appropriate. Freedom of speech does not give you the right to yell 'fire" in a crowded theatre.
That's neither pithy, nor appropriate, nor correct. Freedom of speech absolutely does come with the freedom to yell 'fire' in a crowded theatre. The case of someone yelling 'fire' in a crowded theatre is commonly given as the limitation on absolute free speech, and an example of how we most certainly do not have complete freedom of speech.
-
@blakeyrat said:
@eViLegion said:
I'm a bit confused what point you're trying to make here, Blakey. What if he doesn't want to do it because he's just a cunt? What are you saying if not that he should be forced to behave uncuntishly (based on your opinion of what is cuntish)?Anyway, this isn't about freedom of speech, this is about freedom of action... I rather think I ought to be free to write software in my own time, for fun, and not be compelled to write it in any other way than the way I want to write it. Do you have a problem with me doing that?
What's the point of writing software you don't expect anybody to use?
If you do expect people to use it, why wouldn't you make it as accessible as possible? Because it's slightly more work? Oh poor baby.
-
@blakeyrat said:
What's the point of writing software you don't expect anybody to use?
There is no point, but no-one does that. I like to write software for me to use. Are you seriously arguing that I should do more work because you want me to? In that case you're the baby.
@blakeyrat said:
@eViLegion said:
Remember, this is the crux of the discussion: blakey insisted that ALL technology must be made to be accessible
I never said that. Quote me. I dare you.
@blakeyrat said:
I'm talking about accessibility. Technology should be accessible to everybody.
OK, so you didn't use the word all, but I'd say that the most direct logical inference there is that "if it is technology, it should be accessible":
Anyway, when I provided a bunch of reasonable examples where its not appropriate to develop technology to be accessible to everybody you got pretty defensive, and insisted that those examples are also covered by your blanket statement... like the quadriplegic game controller for the Wii.
-
@TDWTF123 said:
@havokk said:
I'm not normally a fan of pithy sayings but sometimes they are appropriate. Freedom of speech does not give you the right to yell 'fire" in a crowded theatre.
That's neither pithy, nor appropriate, nor correct. Freedom of speech absolutely does come with the freedom to yell 'fire' in a crowded theatre.Freedom of speech means the gubmint isn't going to arrest you for voicing your opinion. That's all.
-
@TDWTF123 said:
What if he doesn't want to do it because he's just a cunt?
My problem is that he's a cunt hiding behind philosophies of freedom.
It's okay to be a cunt. Sure. You can be a cunt, and people can call you a cunt and everybody knows that you're a cunt. Just expect to be treated like a cunt, and don't start yapping about freedom as if it absolves you of your cuntness.
And on the occasional cheerful day, you're not a cunt and everything's okay.
-
I might be a cunt, but at least I'm correct. :oP
On a more serious note, I do genuinely believe that it is abhorrent to attempt to compel someone to do something that they do not wish to do. I don't think that makes me a cunt. The fact that I don't give a flying fuck about your opinions on things, and I'm prepared to inform you of that quite loudly and aggressively.... that might make me a cunt... fair enough.
But don't try and call me a cunt because I have a strong personal sense of what is right and wrong, based on twin principles of "don't go and fuck with someone else's day" and "it is fair to expect that they'll reciprocate", because those principles are totally reasonable.
-
@dhromed said:
Freedom of speech means the gubmint isn't going to arrest you for voicing your opinion. That's all.
It most certainly does not only mean that; it barely means that at all. I suggest you read some Locke, Paine, etc. They knew, even if we seem to be forgetting.
-
@eViLegion said:
It is not reasonable to make EVERY alarm a visual alarm, because it would mean installing more alarms, each at greater expense, when they're mostly not necessary.
Some people believe saving human lives is worth the expense. THOSE WACKO NUTJOBS!
-
@eViLegion said:
There is no point, but no-one does that. I like to write software for me to use.
If you're talking about masturbation, say masturbation.
I still don't get the point of writing software you don't expect anybody to use, but hey if that's how you get your jollies, knock yourself out.
@eViLegion said:
OK, so you didn't use the word all,
The word "all" is kind of important in that sentence construct. I also did use the word "should" instead of "must", one of those tiny insignificant words that I'm sure in eViLegion's brain doesn't change the meaning of the sentence at all.
@eViLegion said:
but I'd say that the most direct logical inference there
I don't infer.
@eViLegion said:
is that "if it is technology, it should be accessible"
Oh the word "should" reappears with zero acknowledgement (from you) that it differs from the word "must". Lovely.
@eViLegion said:
Anyway, when I provided a bunch of reasonable examples where its not appropriate to develop technology to be accessible to everybody you got pretty defensive, and insisted that those examples are also covered by your blanket statement... like the quadriplegic game controller for the Wii.
So?
The point I'm getting at is you grossly misquoted me and obviously did not bother to actually read what I typed and you're arguing against some kind of strawman construct that has nothing to do with my actual opinion on the matter. So basically, what I'm getting at, is: fuck off. And die. Let's go with fuck off and die.
-
@blakeyrat said:
@eViLegion said:
It is not reasonable to make EVERY alarm a visual alarm, because it would mean installing more alarms, each at greater expense, when they're mostly not necessary.
Some people believe saving human lives is worth the expense. THOSE WACKO NUTJOBS!
It should be covered by tax... so that the disable person moving into a new place can get some kind of grant, which covers the cost of the extra alarms they need.
Question: At what point should I stop spending my time and money saving the world?
(1) Before I have spent all my money, and have died
(2) When I have spent all my money, and have died
(3) After I've got myself into debt, and have died
-
@dhromed said:
My problem is that he's a cunt hiding behind philosophies of freedom.
I can't see any problem there at all. Isn't that the meaning of freedom?
I'm rather unclear as to how you think it's 'free' to place restrictions on what someone can do. It clearly isn't. It's the opposite of freedom. And, as far as I can tell, it's what you're arguing: that there should be a tax on software-writing-as-leisure-activity to pay for accessibility-adaptations, and that tax should be extremely high, and solely paid by those who engage in said leisure activity -- and that will somehow be a good thing, rather than an obviously ludicrous catastrophe of well-meaning but completely misguided totalitarianism.
I'd say you haven't thought this through, but you clearly have, and came out on the side of the loons.
Seriously, where do you draw the line? Am I to be taxed when I sing in the shower to provide a visual version for my deaf neighbour so that the fruit of my leisure-time is 'accessible' to all? What about if Bob the Coprophile lives downstairs and enjoys catching wind of my morning meeting with the porcelain - usually the most productive meeting of the day? Should I be forced to buy perfumes for the other neighbours so they can also have access to olfactory pleasure?
-
@blakeyrat said:
stuff
That is the weakest load of bullshit I've ever seen you come out with. And you do come out with some weak-ass bullshit.
If you want to pretend that you haven't been arguing for accessibility for all, all this time, then go ahead, but the discussion is clearly here for everyone to see.
You even tried to contradict my selected counter-examples to why "All technology must be made accessible", so if that was a strawman, why the fuck did you leap in to defend it?
You tool!
-
@blakeyrat said:
@eViLegion said:
Now you're just being a fucking idiot. No-one objects to saving lives, in general. The question is over the best way to do so.It is not reasonable to make EVERY alarm a visual alarm, because it would mean installing more alarms, each at greater expense, when they're mostly not necessary.
Some people believe saving human lives is worth the expense. THOSE WACKO NUTJOBS!
It's typically a hard-left-liberal drooling nutjob tactic to pretend there's no such thing as opportunity cost.
-
@eViLegion said:
(3) After I've got myself into debt, and have died
I hope that, after I die, people will say of me, "that guy sure owed me a lot of money."
-
@TDWTF123 said:
[this is] what you're arguing: that there should be a tax on software-writing-as-leisure-activity to pay for accessibility-adaptations, and that tax should be extremely high, and solely paid by those who engage in said leisure activity -- and that will somehow be a good thing, rather than an obviously ludicrous catastrophe of well-meaning but completely misguided totalitarianism.
I'd say you haven't thought this through, but you clearly have, and came out on the side of the loons.
Seriously, where do you draw the line? Am I to be taxed when I sing in the shower to provide a visual version for my deaf neighbour so that the fruit of my leisure-time is 'accessible' to all? What about if Bob the Coprophile lives downstairs and enjoys catching wind of my morning meeting with the porcelain - usually the most productive meeting of the day? Should I be forced to buy perfumes for the other neighbours so they can also have access to olfactory pleasure?
I haven't even talked about tax, and a few posts up I explicitly said I don't care about evilegion's personal programming hobby projects. I don't know where you're getting all that other random stuff. You have quite the imagination!
-
@dhromed said:
I haven't even talked about tax
tax (n)
1 a : a charge usually of money imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes
b : a sum levied on members of an organization to defray expenses2 : a heavy demand
-
@blakeyrat said:
@eViLegion said:
It is not reasonable to make EVERY alarm a visual alarm, because it would mean installing more alarms, each at greater expense, when they're mostly not necessary.
Some people believe saving human lives is worth the expense. THOSE WACKO NUTJOBS!"If it saves just one life it will be worth it!" I don't believe that blakey really believes this, but it's part of his long term trolling to go extreme in stuff like accessibility and usability because they are generally mostly ignored or unsuccessful. It's funny because he doesn't seem to realize how stupid he ends up seeming.
-
@TDWTF123 said:
I'm rather unclear as to how you think it's 'free' to place restrictions on what someone can do. It clearly isn't. It's the opposite of freedom.
Maybe. But some of those restrictions prevent encroachments on other freedoms.
@TDWTF123 said:
Seriously, where do you draw the line?
Yes, this is the question. There are rarely obvious places where people can agree, and the best method, IMHO, seems to be compromises brought about through some sort of democratic process. The really interesting bit is looking at how people come up with their ideas about where the lines should be.
-
@joe.edwards said:
2 : a heavy demand
But that's just because you're lazy.That meaning of “tax” is related to the phrasing “That was a taxing climb up the north face of the mountain.” If you've got an objection to working hard, I can relate to that, but it's not got much to do with the mechanism for raising of government monies these days.
-
@dkf said:
If you've got an objection to working hard, I can relate to that, but it's not got much to do with the mechanism for raising of government monies these days.
That's kind of my point. Tax was being used to mean work, not money. Raising government monies is a different derailment.
Or maybe I can't follow all this ranting properly.
-
@dhromed said:
I haven't even talked about tax
An order from the government to provide something of value in exchange for doing something? Of course that's a tax.@dhromed said:a few posts up I explicitly said I don't care about evilegion's personal programming hobby projects
So what are you calling him a cunt for, then?
@dhromed said:I don't know where you're getting all that other random stuff.
I took your rather ill-considered argument to its logical extreme.
-
@joe.edwards said:
@dkf said:
If you've got an objection to working hard, I can relate to that, but it's not got much to do with the mechanism for raising of government monies these days.
That's kind of my point. Tax was being used to mean work, not money. Raising government monies is a different derailment.
Or maybe I can't follow all this ranting properly.
You missed his point, IMO. He was using it in the sense of raising government monies. Implying that by forcing the person creating the product to also spend his own time and effort on making that product accessible by government mandate, that is an indirect tax. Instead of going from money paid to the government to work, you just get the work directly.
-
Maybe I'm just sick of watching the same debate over the same tired issues play out over and over again.
-
@eViLegion said:
@blakeyrat said:
Nobody is expecting you to do more work for software that is solely for your personal use. I don't remember you saying that it was solely for personal use (just that the disabled people weren't the intended audience). You may have said it, I'm not going to go back and check.What's the point of writing software you don't expect anybody to use?
There is no point, but no-one does that. I like to write software for me to use. Are you seriously arguing that I should do more work because you want me to? In that case you're the baby.
That said, blakey ranting on the importance between must and should, all and not-all is important here. If he had said all, that would apply to your personal project. He didn't and it doesn't. The more public the software, the more it should enable accessability. Personal project? Meh. Internal company app? I suppose it depends on the company, but I think it should, given how easy most accessability options are. Anything sold, or any external website? Yes it absolutely should.
People writing personal projects and then deciding to put them out for use is what (I think) blakey essentially has a problem with OpenSource. (Hopefully I'm not putting words in his mouth here. If so, then I'll say them for myself.) Writing something quick, then putting it out and not supporting it or not giving any thought to what are important considerations (GUI, accessibility).
