avehn

1,228.8 gigabytes (in binary)

1. I feel that I get value from the artist/podcaster/writer and in our capitalist society value == money.

2. I have a budget that changes. But if I cannot afford to support someone new I will wait until I have more income or less expenses.

3. I support people until I feel I no longer get value from them or can no longer afford to support them. Money gets tight sometimes.

The regulations were put in place because ISPs were not voluntarily cooperating with net neutrality. The FCC chair appears to be either unaware of history or practicing wishful thinking.

The problem is how "the rot" is defined. And having an exhaustive database or algorithm that can quickly eliminate whatever "rot" the system has defined is what makes Minority Report dystopian.

Laws are in place to benefit those in power not "all of society," as anyone who does not benefit from them can attest to. And I agree, corporations cannot be allowed to change the laws to suit them.

Unless the service dog has an "In Training" jacket, the person holding the service dog's harness is legally blind.

oh good, someone else noticed... I thought it was just me.

People who cannot use a mouse or see a screen, who rely exclusively on keyboard commands, will be greatly affected by this change.

Global Accessibility Awareness Day https://www.w3.org/WAI/perspectives/

Why would you need a tax? When products are originally designed with an awareness of how people with different abilities will use them there is no extra cost involved. A tax would just incentivize inaccessibility.

I will concede that it does take extra time/money to bolt on accessibility features after a product has been developed. Which is why it can look like companies are being forced/shamed into fixing their inaccessible products. However, when products are put on the market with faulty or broken parts it is completely reasonable and expected that the company that created the product will pay to fix the issues. Inaccessible products are the same as broken products.

In addition, an unpaid internship only attracts students who do not know their own value. The really good ones know they can find a place willing to pay at least some of what they are worth.

In Oakland there is one also, called the Parkway and they go one step further in the comfort area, they serve real food.

while i found Dion's post interesting, Alex Russell's comment was much more informative. The fixes Alex discusses are definitely needed.

While the paranoia prone part of my mind worries, I believe this is definitely a wonderful thing. Imagine the possibilities for the planet and beyond.

Good things to keep in mind as I write out my front end. I never knew about defering.

this is a hypochondriac's dream. finally they can find all the ailments they've been missing with Google's helpful auto-fill.

Seriously though I think this is pretty cool as you don't have to drive back to the state you just left because you forgot to get your medical records from your previous physician.

Listing 30 "must read" books is great, but nowhere in the article does he state his credentials. Is he part of a successful start-up? If so why doesn't he say so? If not why would I read the same books that have not helped him?

Every niche has it's doom sayers that try to exploit fear for personal gain.

Sure Adobe can make products that work better and look better than Microsoft's current office suites, but arguably Linux has a better operating system, Firefox has a better browser, and that has not caused people to stop using Windows or IE respectively. Microsoft is just too well rooted in the corporate world.

The world Godin presents is definitely scary for me. I value my feeling of privacy, but as he points out it is only an illusion. The need for this illusion of anonymity is strong in our society because people don't want to take responsibility for their actions, or are ashamed. The kind of openness described by Godin requires a new paradigm and therefore can only be currently adopted by few.

I think Cringely makes some valid points about the risks Google is taking but I think he is being overly paranoid. Even if he is not and the world is run by the telcos, I still say good on Google. Even if only some of the rules Google is proposing are adopted for this new frequency band we would be looking at a new way to network. A better way. An open way.

Ads are here to stay and if you have to encounter them, why not let them be ones for things you might actually like? I think the voting thing is pretty ingeneous, though i feel there will be some problems:

People don't like extra effort, they are more likely to ignore an ad they don't like than click or move a slider. On the other side of the same coin, they will be more likely to just click on an ad they do like than muck with some sort of rating system.

People don't always know what they like, just because one day they find something attractive doesn't mean a week later or even hours later they will like the same thing.