As long as that “equal opportunity” comes with special accommodations. We get that.

it just worked out that way. and as a result I am MORE satisfied as a customer than otherwise I would have been. Sheesh.

Your satisfaction is not the same as a demand to change a product. That is what you are missing.

Except that something else doesn’t exist.

Then make one yourself.

And I love that logic. “What? That restaurant is racially segregated and you as a black guy don’t like it? well, then eat somewhere else!”

That is dis-ingeniousness and you know it. A better analogy would be that an a group of oriental food lovers demand that McDonalds carry sushi because it is the fair thing to do. You wouldn’t support that but yet you support… oh nevermind.

Are you really going to stand here and say that the exceptions should include access of a student to textbooks?

No, I am saying that you used the idea that closed captioning is “required” on all tv broadcasts. It is not. If you want to use the same scope of rules for electronic books, I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt that you were including exceptions.

Clearly not fair.

Not clearly. This is why I asked. I disagree with the notion that you have the right to say how an author sells their product. I disagree with the idea that someone has to express themselves in a certain manner.

Except that is not what this post is about; its about being compelled by boycott, or at least an attempt to compel by boycott, which is a wholly different issue.

Except you didn’t really answer the question. I suspect that is because you know where your line of reasoning goes.

Okay forgetting again that you wrote something that is literally nonsensical,

Actually, it isn’t.

Should there be accommodations?

Two words: reasonable accommodations. This gets back to the nuance that you seem to never address. You seem to think that all accommodations are reasonable. I don’t.

It’s the Christian thing to do, so much so that you object even to people using a boycott to achieve equality. Nice.

Okay. I’m done with this. Clearly you are so locked into an opinion that rational discussion is impossible. The topic is black and white to you. You believe that whatever a disabled person demands needs to be an accommodation. The rest of us are a little more nuanced than that.

3 speeds 1 mb sec $41

6 mb sec $59

16 $69

Andre

Wednesday, December 02, 2009

Physician subcontracting

Defn of a referral.

Emergent care?

Help them to bill.

Put in task list.

Gitar

> Fair enough. Then why are you

No, the first question should be “why are they” as in the authors of this site. Why are they getting their panties in a bunch of this. This site is called “overlawyered” but there isn’t a lawyer in sight in that article.

And as for why I support them. Um, because I believe in EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY.

> “Satisfaction” is [violated?] when the product doesn’t work as advertised. Demanding a company change a product is not the same thing.

Leaving aside the fact that I think your first sentence actually literally says the opposite of what you meant to say (not picking on you, just thrown by it), what the hell are you talking about? Satisfaction is satisfaction, as in I picked up your product and it met my needs. For instance, when I purchased my PSP I didn’t expect that it would not only play games and movies but serve as my portable music player, too. it just worked out that way. and as a result I am MORE satisfied as a customer than otherwise I would have been. Sheesh.

> Don’t buy a Kindle. Buy something else.

Except that something else doesn’t exist.

And I love that logic. “What? That restaurant is racially segregated and you as a black guy don’t like it? well, then eat somewhere else!”

> I just want to make sure that I am understanding you correctly. Are you saying that if the Kindle had a feature that allowed access to textbooks in a better way for blind students, you wouldn’t want that to be expanded for other electronic books and newspapers (which the Kindle supports)?

I haven’t thought that far ahead, and I have decided its too far off topic to bother with it.

> Fair enough. As long as you realize that captioning is not required on all programs at all times. There are exceptions.

Are you really going to stand here and say that the exceptions should include access of a student to textbooks?

I mean jesus all these kids want to do is get an education, they aren’t even suing, and you are still opposed.

> Fair or not?

Clearly not fair. But that doesn’t end the debate. There are unfair things you can do that are nonetheless your right.

And in any case if sighted people said, “I am not going to buy this author’s book until he allows everyone to be able to enjoy it” I wouldn’t denounce them, and in fact I would support that. You know, one for all and all for one? And what exactly would be wrong with that hypothetical sighted person taking that attitude. What exactly is your object?

> Should the author be compelled by law to provide the book with the “text to speech” feature enabled?

Except that is not what this post is about; its about being compelled by boycott, or at least an attempt to compel by boycott, which is a wholly different issue.

> You talk all the time about “equal opportunity” and “second class citizenship” and then demand special considerations, accommodations and treatment.

Right. “I’m not discriminating against the disabled. I am just refusing to build a wheelchair ramp. I am not discriminating against Jews. I am just requiring everyone to work on Sunday.” We have been down this road before and if you think that disabled people are getting “special treatment” you are disconnected from reality. Even with accommodations most of the time things are still unfair to the handicapped, just less so.

> “Second class” is not “citizenship with more ‘rights’” than others.

Okay forgetting again that you wrote something that is literally nonsensical, I think I get what you are trying to say. but let me ask you this. What about a courthouse? Or a voting booth? Should there be accommodations? Should a paraplegic be able to sue and be sued equally, to sit as a witness, etc. Should a blind man be allowed to vote?

According to you accommodating them gives them “more rights than others.” And thus you would say that you are strictly for equality, requiring both the paralyzed and those who are not to equally climb stairs; and the sighted and the blind to equally be required to read by sight. That’s a funny definition of equality.

But this has been a very useful thread. By objecting not to a lawsuit seeking equality, but freedom of speech, association and commerce being used to ask for accommodation, it has shown us that you guys aren’t mad about ADA litigation, so much as you are completely opposed to all accommodations. Didn’t the bible say something about not putting stumbling blocks in the way of the blind? And aside from that specific statement, there is the general injunction that one should treat others as you would have yourself treated. So apparently if you were blind, you would just be perfectly happy kept ineducated, so much so that you wouldn’t even use methods protected under the first amendment such as boycotts to get a chance at an education. If you were paraplegic, you wouldn’t mind being shut out of stores, the courthouse, the voting booth, etc.—kept powerless and in a state of perpetual dependency on others. It’s the Christian thing to do, so much so that you object even to people using a boycott to achieve equality. Nice.

Bumper

> Naturally no regular reader of OL would suspect such a sudden change of course by the NFB could have anything to do with free publicity, money or politics.

Right, the national federation for the blind is all about the benjamins. Sheesh, how stupid do you think people are?

Bob

> Part of the problem is that I was thinking of the very existence of the read-aloud function as an accomadation for blind people. Apparently AW does not.

Amazon very clearly didn’t think of blind people at all when it added that feature, or else the minimal consideration needed to accommodate them would have been made. That being said, whatever amazon’s objective intent was, I am sure some blind people actually do use it for that purpose.

You may continue with the bickering.

Bob

http://www.acb.org/magazine/2009/bf062009-1.html

Naturally no regular reader of OL would suspect such a sudden change of course by the NFB could have anything to do with free publicity, money or politics. But for the record there are several other devices that convert text to speech including every Apple Macintosh made this decade and probably every Windows machine as well.

As always, follow the money.

Might tell my children to learn ASL so they can attend college classes for free as an interpreter.

The pilot programs were announced before the audiobook kerfuffle was over. Don’t see a problem here as the Kindle was never, to my knowledge, marketed as a tool for the blind. I imagine that universities will rather quickly reach a point that they will provide e-books in whatever format the student desires and the students themselves will choose which device they want to use or perhaps even choose print books and write in the margins! The market will always begin with the majority and then tweak for those who are left. Cars are built for able-bodied people and then modified for those with physical handicaps (except for the blind, although I think some drivers may have used their Jedi tricks to get a license).

Rather than pick on the Kindle why not encourage schools to offer multiple formats of text books and let the students choose? In the space of a couple years they have gone from print books only to print plus Kindle texts. It won’t be much longer for more formats to become available–as long as the audio book licensing can be worked out.

Some people complain they can’t use the underline and notes feature in some Kindle books (it seems to be paid subscription/journals where that’s not enabled, no editing). You could underline and dog-ear in a print version you had in your hand. This is something that will be worked out as Amazon gets more feedback on how people are using the Kindle. Some, like us, use for public domain books and the like. Others are putting academic papers on it that are protected and yet they want to use notes and underlines. I am sure publishers will eventually enable those features if enough readers say they want it.

Seems like a tempest in a teapot.

Fair enough. Then why are you supporting those who give crap to a company that doesn’t include a certain level of feature that you believe in?

Yes, and god forbid customers seek satisfaction. What on earth are they thinking?

“Satisfaction” is when the product doesn’t work as advertised. Demanding a company change a product is not the same thing. That is the “nuance” that Bob noticed you seem to not wish to address.

Great. so how do blind people choose a kindle that has this feature? Oh, wait, they can’t.

Don’t buy a Kindle. Buy something else. Make a reader that does what you want it to do the way you wish it to operate.

There are alternatives other than “we demand you change this.”

But, yeah, I think that in particular the publisher of textbooks used in schools should not be allowed to use proprietary “rights” to keep the disabled from being able to enjoy full and equal educational access.

I just want to make sure that I am understanding you correctly. Are you saying that if the Kindle had a feature that allowed access to textbooks in a better way for blind students, you wouldn’t want that to be expanded for other electronic books and newspapers (which the Kindle supports)?

I just want to make sure that you support of the demand is for texbooks only.

Frankly, I think its about the same as requiring a network to broadcast with captioning.

Its just the right thing to do, especially when it comes to offering disabled students an equal opportunity. Why shouldn’t they?

……. just shut up and accept a second class citizenship for the handicapped.

This is where I think most people have problems or at least a disconnect with your position. You talk all the time about “equal opportunity” and “second class citizenship” and then demand special considerations, accommodations and treatment.

“Equal” is not “equal plus.”

“Second class” is not “citizenship with more ‘rights'” than others.

> You mean that someone who blind can do something without a tactile feel of the computer?

Gitar, are you unaware of the techniques you can use to open a program without using a mouse?

> The only issue appears to be not enough of a tactile feedback to the user.

Actually they are looking for auditory feedback. But thanks for not understanding.

> Frankly AW, this is a case where a device that was designed to do one thing has people demanding that it do something else to their satisfaction.

Yes, and god forbid customers seek satisfaction. What on earth are they thinking?

> Should we then demand that car manufacturers install a GPS as standard equipment on all vehicles?

If you would like to refuse to buy any car that doesn’t have a GPS, I won’t give you crap for it, or post a complaint about it on a site that is supposed to be about complaining about lawsuit abuse.

> Doesn’t that need or desirability mean a choice for the consumer and not a demand?

Great. so how do blind people choose a kindle that has this feature? Oh, wait, they can’t.

> Assuming that Kindle is redesigned to make it easier for the blind to use, isn’t the next logical step in your thought process that the publisher must allow the text to speech feature enabled on their books and media?

It wasn’t the topic on the table. I mean this entire issue up until now has nothing to do with the law or lawyers. It really comes down to “do you believe the nerve of those blind people wanting to enjoy the product equally, or a least more equally?”

But, yeah, I think that in particular the publisher of textbooks used in schools should not be allowed to use proprietary “rights” to keep the disabled from being able to enjoy full and equal educational access. Frankly, I think its about the same as requiring a network to broadcast with captioning. Its just the right thing to do, especially when it comes to offering disabled students an equal opportunity. Why shouldn’t they?

And most of all, why shouldn’t a couple universities use market pressure to achieve their goals? You would think everyone here would be happy that they are not suing, but instead I hear whining that they don’t just shut up and accept a second class citizenship for the handicapped.

You mean that someone who blind can do something without a tactile feel of the computer?

That is great.

It also throws out the “accommodation” in the case of the Kindle. The only issue appears to be not enough of a tactile feedback to the user. As you have just illustrated, there is no need for tactile feedback when dealing with an electronic device.

Frankly AW, this is a case where a device that was designed to do one thing has people demanding that it do something else to their satisfaction. It isn’t good enough that the thing has state of the art text to speech reading capabilities, it has to be designed to do a certain thing a certain way.

Many people get lost while driving. Should we then demand that car manufacturers install a GPS as standard equipment on all vehicles? Or is the GPS a feature that some people need and some may not? Doesn’t that need or desirability mean a choice for the consumer and not a demand?

You have mentioned that people that are blind buy the most audiobooks. I am not sure that the statistics back that up. Less than one percent of the population is legally blind, but 28% have bought audiobooks.

Finally, whether Kindle is able to utilize the text to speech feature is based on permission from the publisher of the book / material. Assuming that Kindle is redesigned to make it easier for the blind to use, isn’t the next logical step in your thought process that the publisher must allow the text to speech feature enabled on their books and media?

If that is the case, then where does control of ones intellectual property begin and end? Are you really going to say that a publisher / author has to express themselves in a certain media or they cannot express or publish at all?