Blind people have been on computer networks longer than you know, clearly. There are multiple ways for them to receive data, from speech synthesis to Braille displays. I'll take a random guess and say that this has probably been the case longer than you have been alive.
The modern Web is cute and all, but there was a hell of a lot available before there was a Web and before it got turned into the social and commercial dumping ground it has become.There was an Internet before the Web, and networks before that. Lots and lots of text. And as these things "progressed", they became worse for a lot of people. And if we are just looking at visual impairment here, the various types of color-blindness figure in as well, not just complete blindness or legal blindness. Content that was easily available in the past becomes more and more inaccessible as time goes on, because some people like dumbed-down flashy trash designed by corporate morons and people who shouldn't be allowed to code 'Hello world" let alone anything else.
I don't know about the Netflix ruling, but the assumption that a negligible number of people are negligibly affected by the way some people want to design the net is beyond absurd.
Ah, there. There's the appropriate "fuck you" moment.
You know, never mind the ADA or what it may legally applies to, quit acting like business and society are fine as-is with regards to the assumptions about who is a member of society and a consumer. Default mode for entitlement is male, white, straight, able-bodied, average height, and neurotypical. That's an elite group that barely covers anyone yet it is the group everyone else has to fit into a life designed for and by them.
If you make things generally accessible, you don't have to worry so much about specific disabilities. But that would ruin the argument from the privileged side when they want to play the victim card about have to serve inconveniently different groups of other human beings by claiming they are all small and overly privileged groups.
Of course bad laws and regulations are bad. Of course not every single business or person can accommodate every single potential consumer. But the selfishness, privilege, and honking huge sense of entitlement aren't where you'd like to project them.
Did Shaw maybe think it would have been a competitive move to try it before there was a ruling? (Given I realize that this ruling does also affect the content providers that the cable companies have to pay, but still.)
Oddly enough, current events comedy is where you get real coverage of some limited things, with less fluff and 70% of the program spent telling you what they are going to tell you about... eventually, if you manage to sit through it.
the poor ol’ NSA just doesn’t have the “cyber-offensive” capabilities
Never mind they should be doing this, but even as they want to, just what the hell do they think they need?. Pick 10 more jerks, sit them behind a general purpose OS and computer and tell them to have at it.
You's thing there was some super-special network attack school the NSA was barred from attending or something, or really special equipment, and lots of it, needed. Hell, if they even want exploits or malware, they can damn well buy them and rent botnets (and then take them over if they want) out of the huge existing commercial market.
It's all about convenience. They want more money (because they always do), and they want some laws on the books so they can continue to do all the things they already do, but a whistleblower or other exposure will not have individuals in the NSA having to go to some pointless meetings about it (no one likes sitting through those kind of stupid meetings).
They refused to even look for their contracts or records of rights. That's apathy. Their point-blank refusal is also apathy, if you want to go that way. Your suggestion is misleading.
"It's still unclear to me," he said, "with all the people that we dealt with, there wasn't anyone at either Warner Bros., Activision, or 20th Century Fox who said, 'Here's a copy of the contract that we have, and as you can see, we own all rights.' We don't know of any… we didn't see any of that documentation. And probably, without going to court, we never will."
Representatives for Warner Bros., Activision, and Fox could not comment by press time.
You advocate the wrong kinds of Socializmz. The kinds we decry as Socialism, (which has an embedded exclamation point) with our spittle-flecked mouths. Not the other kinds, which we emphatically deny are any kind of socialism at all. Because reasons.
Not sure why a selfie-stick should get a pass anywhere this sort of class of objects is banned already. The one that really screams out to me is (Brazilian, or any other) soccer matches. Yes yes, please do let everyone bring their photographic ordnance with them, it should be spectacular.
Re: Someone's cheering, and it's not just the spies
Well, sure, and since players are more likely to spend money on such a thing rather than actually securing anything in the first place, I'm sure it would make for interesting times when everyone can cyberstand their cyberground.
This is the same as for a world in which Grindr does not exist. Sometimes one is fooled, and the law doesn't like to take that into account, but also people like to pretend they are fooled when they are not. It's a grey area from an outside viewpoint. (Excepting cases where the minor is very clearly not of legal age.) But yes, if the person looks a little young, curb your hormones for a moment and either check or decline.