Date   

How To Make Windows 10 Look and Feel Like Windows 7 #article

Joe
 

I hope the article below helps someone?--Joe

 

How To Make Windows 10 Look and Feel Like Windows 7

toggle-button

   

 

Windows 7 screenshotIf you want to use Windows 10 and it's new features (or have to use Windows 10 for various reasons) but would be happier with the Windows 7 interface, then this article is a must read.
The article outlines 15 ways to make Windows 10 look and feel like Windows 7, getting you as close to the familiar Windows 7 interface as possible. Windows 10 has made some improvements over Windows 8 (bringing back the Start menu for one) but it's still quite a difference to anyone using Windows 7. With Windows 8, installing a Start Menu Replacement made Windows 8 look and act like Windows 7 for the most part. In Windows 10, it's not quite as easy.
Here's a list of the various changes that make Windows 10 more like Windows 7:

  • Windows 7 like Start Menu
  • Aero Glass Transparency
  • Disable the Lock Screen
  • Remove Cortana search box from the taskbar
  • Disable Windows Explorer ribbon
  • Disable Quick Access
  • Disable Action Center
  • Install desktop gadgets
  • Get Windows 7 like folders
  • Uninstall and remove Edge browser
  • Get rid of default modern apps
  • Use a local account to sign in
  • Enable the classic Personalization window
  • Set Windows 7 wallpaper as your desktop background

Here are two additional helpful Windows 10 articles - one on blocking Windows 10 updates (I'm not in favor of forced updates), and this article has options for Home versions of Windows 10. Windows Pro and up have some options for blocking Windows Updates that the Home version doesn't. The other one addresses six of the most common Windows 10 annoyances and how to fix them.
Block Windows 10 forced updates without breaking your machine
Six Windows 10 annoyances: How to make them go away for good

You may have noticed that there are 14 (instead of 15) items listed. I left off the "Install Windows 7 games" because the link goes to a forum where you have to register to see the information. You can find a direct link to the download listed in our article here: Get Classic Windows 7 Games in Windows 8 and 10 for Free.

15 ways to make Windows 10 look and feel like Windows 7
 

You can find more Tech Treats here.

 

Please rate this article: 

I like thisUnlike1I dislike thisUndislike0

Hide Comments...

Comments

Submitted by Jojo Yee on 22. June 2016 - 0:44

(126982)

My only concern is that after all these tweaks, will any of them break or don't work after another update of Windows 10?

Submitted by eikelein on 22. June 2016 - 1:16

(126983)

Jojo,
The more you "tweak" the higher the chance of the tweak being "broken" by an update; that update does nothing but "reset" the tweak to a known good default like MIcro$oft wants it.

Submitted by Jojo Yee on 22. June 2016 - 1:48

(126984)

Yes eikelein I think it's true that chances are higher for broken parts when we have more tweaks.

The problem is that we do not know if some tweaks are interlinked in the system settings contained in the registry or hidden files and how they work together.

Micro$oft might update some of them, leaving some remaining tweaked parts untouched since they were considered or supposed to be original without needing an update. It would be perfect if the tweaked parts and the updated parts can work together :) but a nightmare if not :(

Submitted by eikelein on 22. June 2016 - 2:31

(126987)

Jojo,
You are correct again.

And exactly that is why I don't like to tweak at all.

I use Classic Shell; there is at least a chance that things will eventually get fixed should an update "break" it.
Worst case I just uninstall Classic Shell and live with W10 as it is meant to be.

If I really hate it I can still switch to Linux and/or run Linux in Virtual Box... ;-)

Submitted by ron525 on 22. June 2016 - 14:40

(126995)

eikelein, how different is Classic Shell from Winaero on how it instigates changes and in your opinion do you think Winaero would have problems with updates?

Submitted by eikelein on 23. June 2016 - 1:30

(127001)

Ron525,
I guess it's about time to wish you a Happy B-Day.

To answer your question: I have no clue. Quite some time ago I found Classic Shell's description, I believe on Sourceforge.
I liked what I read and tried it; have never looked back and just don't have enough time and energy to make any kind of comparison. Sorry.

Submitted by ron525 on 23. June 2016 - 7:07

(127005)

eikelein,
Thanks.

I found Winaero being mentioned a bit on W10, W7 threads on Whirlpool Forum AU, recommended for some tweaks, It has been around for a few years and members have used it for a fair amount of time with no issues being raised.

I don't have it installed on my daily l/top at present so will run it on 2nd l/top to see if it has problems, nothing untoward happened after latest W10 update last night.

Submitted by MidnightCowboy on 22. June 2016 - 4:48

(126989)

There is another issue related to this in that many folks still insist on using so called registry cleaners for reasons beyond my comprehension. These things are coded to see a system in a certain state and chuck out anything that doesn't match. In so doing they are quite capable of trashing Windows and often do. A tweaked system is even more likely to be "corrected" to produce a nice blank screen at next boot . :) MC - Site Manager.

Submitted by ron525 on 21. June 2016 - 14:01

(126976)

It appears to me as computers were evolving it was a race for the best bling i.e. good colour outstanding icon graphics.

So what happened now we have to put up with faint characters that are hard to see and often small pale colours and flat grade school quality graphics.

Submitted by Jojo Yee on 21. June 2016 - 23:49

(126980)

True, ron525, but it appears to me that technology is one thing, trend or fashion is another.

Submitted by ron525 on 22. June 2016 - 14:31

(126994)

How true Jojo Yee, I see that issue on my Xiaomi phone adding a lot of fancy mods(many could be called bloat) far out weighs true enhancements, simplifications and fixing bugs.

But I think some of the W10 changes create more actions to get to things as well, or I still have to adjust to a different OS.
Maybe change is not liked but when one is used to a product and it it works so easily and smooth you start to question why it has been altered.

Submitted by These Old Eyes on 20. June 2016 - 20:21

(126966)

Will someone at MS please notice that the population is aging, in many cases (like mine) with diminishing ability for eyes to adjust to radically different light levels? I'd like to see a third party develop an appropriately intrusive "app" (shudder) to restore user control over background colors in Window 10, preferably within the next month!

Submitted by rhiannon on 20. June 2016 - 20:41

(126967)

This is all I could come up, hopefully things will improve. http://www.groovypost.com/howto/using-Windows-10-improved-color-personal...

Submitted by abrandt on 20. June 2016 - 15:39

(126959)

Howdy, rhiannon:

Appreciate your response.

I personally am fed up with Microsoft's ANTICS... however I am dependent on Win 7 now due to software Internet Marketing software that runs on Windows only.

I have been watching Linux for years... but now able to bring myself across the threshold for business purposes... so I have to plead IGNORANCE on my part in regards to the Linux world.

Sounds to me like virtual machine or virtual box would be the way to go vs. dual boot option.

My current laptop is a:

Gateway EC5801u laptop

- Intel Core 2 Duo SU7300 1.2GHz, 4GB DDR3, 500GB HDD, DVDRW, 15.6" LED, Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit

I am starting to look for a KILLER DEAL on a :

- 15.6 **business** laptop, Quad Core i5 (at most), 16GB DDR4, 256 SSD, 1TB...

which will inevitably come with Win 10... then I will Virtual Machine UP with Linux Mint.

Open to any brilliant comments!

Thx much... ~ Alan

Submitted by abrandt on 21. June 2016 - 0:19

(126970)

Thank you, eikelein and MidnightCowboy !

Truthfully, I have neither the time or inclination to experiment with Linux.

My Linux interest does not stem from a hobby... but business application... user-friendliness and efficiency... keeping in mind I am tethered to Windows due to specialized applications needed for business.

Much appreciate. ~ Alan

Submitted by eikelein on 20. June 2016 - 22:00

(126968)

Alan,
Even for your "oldie" laptop I recommend you at least look at Linux Lite (https://www.linuxliteos.com/).
I have found it to be much more efficient with computer resources than Linux Mint which for me slowed a computer (with much more Ooomph than your laptop) down to a virtual crawl.

Submitted by MidnightCowboy on 20. June 2016 - 22:21

(126969)

There are many issues that determine how slow or fast a particular Linux might run on different hardware. This is a good list to experiment with although not all of these are particularly user friendly. My vote goes to MX Linux. MC - Site Manager. http://www.techradar.com/news/software/operating-systems/10-of-the-most-...

Submitted by rhiannon on 20. June 2016 - 16:20

(126962)

There are several virtual machine programs around, you can check out our article here:
Best Free Virtualization Solutions

I think Midnight Cowboy runs Windows 7 in a virtual machine using Linux. Maybe he'll chime in with his preferences.

Submitted by abrandt on 20. June 2016 - 16:27

(126963)

rhiannon: Appreciate the reference article. Have read and will implement with new laptop. Thx. ~ Alan

Submitted by rhiannon on 20. June 2016 - 16:39

(126964)

If you're inclined to using Virtual Box, you might find this article helpful:
VirtualBox 5.0 Released – Install on RHEL/CentOS/Fedora and Debian/Ubuntu/Linux Mint

Submitted by abrandt on 20. June 2016 - 16:46

(126965)

rhiannon: Appreciate and reviewed this 2nd vitualization reference article. THX! ~ Alan

Submitted by abrandt on 20. June 2016 - 3:22

(126951)

Thank you to Stephen Jackson and Bob Peterson for their clean, clear and intelligent comments.
Bob... based on your post... I am going take a more serious look at Linux Mint... even though much of my Internet Marketing software is all Win-concentric.
Thank you, ~ Alan

Submitted by rhiannon on 20. June 2016 - 14:54

(126956)

You can run Windows "inside" Linux, as our very own Midnight Cowboy does, as a virtual machine or virtual box. Another option is to dual boot Windows and Linux.

Submitted by ron525 on 21. June 2016 - 13:45

(126973)

I have never looked at running a virtual machine thought it might be complicated,
I am running dual boot W7 and Mint 17.3.

Submitted by MidnightCowboy on 21. June 2016 - 13:53

(126975)

It'as a lot easier than you might think. There are tons of tutorials on Youtube and the web in general, many for specific distros. This is just one example. https://www.pcsteps.com/207-windows-virtual-machine-linux-windows/. The only real issue you might encounter is getting USB recognition for the virtual system but this and anything else are bound to be documented with an appropriate fix in one of the Linux forums. MC - Site Manager.

Submitted by ron525 on 19. June 2016 - 12:41

(126947)

I have W7 and 10 on partitions on a Compaq l/top to see what 10 was like have found it hard to adjust but have done a lot of retro fitting with Winaero tweaker to make it feel more usable.

My daily is a Toshiba l/top partitioned with W7 and Linux Mint, Really want to move over to Mint but I don't seem to find the time at present as I am trying to keep up on the W10"s evolution.

I could kiss all the heart ache good bye If I could convince myself to only log onto Mint but I really don't understand linux at all and had zero success getting my scanner to function which I need continuously and installing other items not knowing if they are enabled or installed even at all.

Submitted by MidnightCowboy on 19. June 2016 - 13:30

(126950)

Just enter your scanner details into the Mint forum search and someone has bound to have encountered the same issue before and obtained a fix. I use a HP Deskjet for instance and it's just a matter of installing the appropriate driver using Synaptic. MC - Site Manager.

Submitted by ron525 on 21. June 2016 - 13:50

(126974)

I will do that I did try google with specific for the LiDE 110 but found nothing, tried Canon but they don't support Linux for it.

Submitted by lunchbeast on 18. June 2016 - 18:33

(126944)

Speaking of Luddites, how far back can we go with this 'make it look like the old version that looked and worked better'? I have always preferred the look and feel of Win2K/WinXP, and I was able to get Win7 to look very similar. If Win10 can be made to look like Win7, can Win10 be made to look like Win7 looking like Win2K/WinXP?

Submitted by rhiannon on 18. June 2016 - 20:39

(126945)

I haven't run across anything that mentions that. If anyone else knows, maybe they'll comment. :)

Pages

toggle-button

Gizmo's Freeware is Recruiting

We are looking for people with skills or interest in the following areas:
 -  Mobile Platform App Reviews for Android and iOS
 -  Windows, Mac and Linux software reviews

Interested? Click here

 

toggle-button

Get Notified of New Finds

     

Get notified by email of our latest finds:

[          ][Subscribe]

X

Get notified by email of our latest finds:

[          ][Subscribe]


Original Page: http://www.techsupportalert.com/content/how-make-windows-10-look-and-feel-windows-7.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+gizmosbest+%28Gizmo%27s+Best-ever+Freeware%29


Re: all about guns and safety was Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

Flor Lynch
 

Oscilloscopes have their use in radio technololgy, and if one could be made to speak or emit audible tones, it certainly would be on topic here! (Smile>.

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeremy
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 12:51 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

Hi Carlos,

In hopes of not stepping on toes, I think you might want to define what is
meant by technology as it relates to this list. I don't think most would
consider guns technology in terms of the scope of blind members wanting to
know about computer sciences and general computing. As is, it appears that
just about anything can be considered technology is one thinks about it.
Would the study of ants be considered technology if an electronic device is
used to watch them at work? Would Woman's make-up be on topic on this list
if someone twists him or herself in pretzels to box up a question using a
technology slant? I think most list members consider computers and all they
do for us as on topic, but seismographs and oscilloscopes might not be as
relevant. ...Just looking for a bit more clarity.

JR

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On Behalf Of
Carlos
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 4:12 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car
Involved In Fatal Accident

Guns are most certainly technology and I personally don't have a problem
with the discussion, but I believe some members might not be quite as
understanding so we might want to close this topic or move it to the chat
list as was suggested.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt" <matt.from.florida@...>
To: <main@TechTalk.groups.io>
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 1:42 AM
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car
Involved In Fatal Accident


Well it not just because it a gun thread if it was about guns and the
technology that could be implemted on them then it would be on topic.
But just guns in general no . or if it is abut guns and blindness it
would be on topic. As carlos is fairly flexable and most anything
technology wise or blindness related is on topic . But I have no
problem about moving to the chat room.


Matt.from.florida@...

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Jeremy
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 1:31 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car
Involved In Fatal Accident

It might be time for the chat list as this topic has now morphed into
some sort of gun thread.

JR

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Matt
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 10:28 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car
Involved In Fatal Accident

Well this is true on single action revolvers of today and it is still
the safety way is to let the hammer set on an empty chamber. Now you
could do the same for a double action as well let it set on the empty
chamber but you don't have to . As the trigger pull unless modified is
usually a fairly heavy pull anyhow. . but the safest way is not to put
your finger on the trigger till you are ready to pull it. they really
have 4types of revolvers as I know. They are single shot, single
action, double action only and DASA (Double action plus single action)
another words you can just pull the trigger or you can cock the hammer
and pull the trigger. Your choice. Most double action only does not
have an external hammer.
Now I was brought up with guns and had them around me and learn at
every early age about them and how to handle them. But you need to get
training on handling them and using them as well as training on the
laws and how to protect yourself with them. it is much more than just
going out and buying gun. This is just stupid. I not a big fan of most
regulation but some I am and some I have no problem with them at all.
But I don't know if we are not sort of straying off topic and off the
the subject as well so this might need to be moved to the chat room.


Matt.from.florida@...


-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of James Bentley
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 1:00 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

You can't even pull the trigger on a single action revolver unless the
hammer is cocked back in to the firing position. You never cock the
gun unless you intend to discharge it.

Most double action revolvers do not have a safety because the gun still
needs to be cocked before it can be fired. Or, the necessary trigger
travel to discharge the gun is so great that it would be almost
impossible to accidentily pull the trigger far enough to shoot the gun.

James



-----Original Message-----
From: Matt
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 11:33 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

You can on most all pistols you cannot on revolvers the safety is not
to pull the trigger.


Matt.from.florida@...

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Pamela Dominguez
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 10:26 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

I think you can lock the trigger. Pam.

-----Original Message-----
From: Rajmund
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 6:19 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

My problem with a gun would be, what if I accidently trigger it in my
pocket? Or sit on it, or whatever?
Knife, cane, spray, they're all good, but I'd be worried with a gun.
Sent from a BrailleNote

----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt" <matt.from.florida@...
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Date sent: Fri, 1 Jul 2016 18:12:42 -0400
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

Nothing wrong with pepper spray in certain events but you don't take
pepper spray to a gun fight or a knife fight or even a baseball bat
fight. If you did you would be on the losing end of the fight for
sure!
You can have lots of things in your protection tool box! Pepper spray
is one of them. But it should not be the only thing. You should have
a knife , stun gun or Taser and a gun for sure a good old fashion
hickory cane with a good hook to it that is very pointed at the end of
the hook is good or asord cane is good. But a water gun is not much
good unless you have something besides water in it.



Matt.from.florida@...


-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Rajmund
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 4:55 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

Hi All,
Speaking of protection, I'd feel safer with a bottle of pepper spray
myself, too. I have worries about guns myself, but the good old
pepper spray.

Sent from a BrailleNote

----- Original Message -----
From: "Laz" <laz@...
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Date sent: Fri, 1 Jul 2016 14:55:52 -0400
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

Gerald, I really hope you're just joking with all this drivel. I know
one of these so-called "blind extremists" who carries a gun and he
carries it for protection only. The times he has shot it in public
was because he was being threatened by four sighted extremist thugs
also known as criminals, who were threatening to not only rob him but
cause him physical harm. He took out his gun and shot once, straight
up into the air. Yes, the extremist thugs quickly ran away in fright
and I hope they also needed to do some laundry quickly afterward.
Who
knows what would have happened to my friend if he hadn't been legally
carrying his weapon. But I know I'm wasting my time with telling you
that as you're not for the individual and his rights but for some
other agenda instead. BTW there are more deaths due to automobile
accidents than there are due to shootings so this brings it back
around to your glass half full attitude aimed at self-driving cars
which have caused how many deaths so far...

Laz

On 7/1/16, Gerald Levy <bwaylimited@...> wrote:

That's a damn good question. Why, indeed, are some blind extremists
allowed

to walk around with guns? Oh, excuse me, it's their constitutional right.
Never mind that they place the rest of us at risk. It's bad enough
that terrorists and sociopaths are allowed to buy and own firearms.
But blind
consumers as well? No wonder this country is a screwed up mess that
has become beholden to dangerous demagogues like Donald Trump.

Gerald



-----Original Message-----
From: Carlos
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 1:45 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

It is nonsense because it is simply not possible. And if the
lawmakers were so determined to put a halt to any technology that is
not 100% safe and foolproof, there are many types of technology we
would not have access to in modern society. If the lawmakers in
Washington care so much about keeping dangerous technology out of the
hands of the blind, then why are there several blind individuals who
are still being allowed to legally own firearms?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gerald Levy" <bwaylimited@...
To: <main@TechTalk.groups.io
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 1:38 PM
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident



You may think that making self-driving cars 100% foolproof is nonsense.
But
you can bet that the lawmakers in Washington and elsewhere won't see
it that way. They will demand that self-driving vehicles be made as
close to 100% foolproof as possible before they consider enacting
legislation that would allow blind drivers to operate them without the
accompaniment of a sighted driver. That's just the realities of
politics in a predominantly sighted world.

Gerald



-----Original Message-----
From: Carlos
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 1:11 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

Who knows when blind people will be allowed to manage these types of cars.
Will it be any time soon? Probably not, but there is a difference
between soon and never. But as far as I'm concerned, the other issue
here is this ridiculous assumption that somehow the technology should
be or ever can be made 100% safe and foolproof. That is just nonsense
and trying to predict the future of the technology based on one
accident or even several is just more nonsense.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt" <matt.from.florida@...
To: <main@TechTalk.groups.io
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 12:59 PM
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident


Well I usually don't or try not to look at things with a half empty
blass but a half full one. But in some cases this is just not
possible. I have to agree with him on this Gerald . It is also not
just the US legislature but from state to state. Just like all
driving laws vary from state to state..
It
is called states' rights and there forth each state will more than
likely implement it on law on driving driverless cars. I also think
they would require very special training even for the sited but
certainly for the blind person as well! I just don't see the blind
being able to do this in my life time and I hope to be here around
another 30 years. I am coming up on my 58th birthday.


Matt.from.florida@...

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Gerald Levy
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 12:49 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident


It really doesn't matter what caused the accident. The bottom line is
that
it will be a very long time, if ever, before blind consumers are allowed
to
operate one of these gizmos by themselves. One fatal accident is still
one
fatal accident too many. These vehicles must be made 100% safe and
foolproof before the powers that be in Washington will let blind drivers
behind the wheel without the accompaniment of a sighted driver in the
passenger's seat. Sorry to throw water on your parade.

Gerald



-----Original Message-----
From: Jeremy
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 12:26 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

Again, another reflexive post of yours. There's lots of reasons why this
could have happened. It is likely these multiple car manufacturers are
using different gPS databases and supporting software, as well as other
yet
to be determined reasons, so what happened here may not happen to other
researchers who are using more developed databases--the results depend on
lots of variables. The Google car has not had this type of history, and
the
single accident it had was due to a human disabling the computer and
taking
over the driving.

Gerald, I don't think technology is for you, so you might consider
solutions
which are less stressful to you.

JR

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On Behalf
Of
Gerald Levy
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 9:18 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident


For those of you who are chomping at the bit to buy one of those
newfangled
self-driving cars that may some day revolutionize the lives of us blind
consumers, not so fast. The race to develop a safe and reliable
self-driving vehicle suffered a major setback recently when a Tesla
all-electric self-driving car was involved in a fatal accident that killed
the driver while it was operating in self-driving mode. I guess it's back
to the drawing board:


http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/01/business/self-driving-tesla-fat
al-crash-investigation.html?_r=0

Gerald
































--
Affordably priced Accessible Talking MP3 Players, Accessible phones,
Bluetooth devices, and accessories http://www.talkingmp3players.com/
Email: laz@...
Phone: 727-498-0121
Skype: lazmesa
Personal Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/laz.mesa
Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/Talkingmp3players?_rdr















-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7640 / Virus Database: 4613/12537 - Release Date: 07/01/16






















Re: Gun Technique, Hunting and Technology

Pamela Dominguez
 

ey! I don't blame you for that, given this information. Pam.

-----Original Message-----
From: James Bentley
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 12:32 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Gun Technique, Hunting and Technology

What's insane is that the general public can purchase a version of this
sniper rifle that hits a very small target at over half a mile.

Yikes, I think I will just stay in the house with the blinds drrawn.



-----Original Message-----
From: Jeremy
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 11:17 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Gun Technique, Hunting and Technology

Wow! that is freakin insane!

JR

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On Behalf Of
James Bentley
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 9:07 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Gun Technique, Hunting and Technology

The United States military has a computerized rifle and scope combination.
It first takes a photo of the entire target area. Next, the shooter uses a
cursor on a touch screen to tell the computer where to put the bullet.
Next, the shooter aims at the target. The computer fires the rifle only
when it sees that the rifle is aimed with pin point accuracy. 3 inch
Targets can be hit accurately at distances over two miles.



-----Original Message-----
From: Jeremy
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 10:56 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Gun Technique, Hunting and Technology

Finally, a relevant informative post. Thank you for contributing to my small
pool of knowledge. :)

And while on the subject matter, I'm thinking an audio beep of some sort
might be able to alert the blind shooter than the object of interest is
within the cross hairs of scope. Key will be determining what is target
object and what is some sort of artifact.

JR

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On Behalf Of
Joe
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 8:47 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: [TechTalk] Gun Technique, Hunting and Technology

There is now what some are calling a smart rifle, out of Texas. At $25,000,
it's beyond the reach of most enthusiasts, but it can fetch that price for
the level of precision it can automatically adjust to help the shooter
acquire a target. If technology has leaped that far, one can almost wonder
what credit, if any, the shooter gets, but my question is this: What
technology have the hunters among us used to rely a little less on sighted
assistance? I go deer hunting, but thus far I have leaned heavily on
discrete cues from sighted companions to know where and when to fire. It's
not a bad method. I've brought down three bucks in this fashion, and while
hunting can often be enjoyed with companions, it would be nice to
independently, but responsibly, engage and execute the target myself. Right
now I use a laser to help my sighted companions get a better sense of where
I am aiming. This allows me to hold and operate the rifle on my own, but
again, it feels inefficient. Any tips would be welcomed.

I'll note that while I am a member of a local shooting range, I have
hesitated to obtain a gun permit. I understand my shooting would be optimal
at very close range, but the risk of hitting someone innocent, however
small, still weighs on my conscience.

I realize for some the discussion of guns and hunting could be abhorrent. If
so, feel free to email me off list. For whatever it's worth, I eat what I
kill. I've never gone hunting for the mere sport. I've learned how to skin
my own kill, and I suppose one could argue the knife skill in doing so could
itself be viewed as a form of technology skill.

Not to stray too far off topic here, but any number of disasters could occur
in our lifetime and in our own backyard. In a scenario with no power and
extensive food shortage, that Windows machine isn't going to be worth a
whole lot except for maybe scrap metal. Our definition of "technology" just
might revert to what technology used to be. That is, the means to survive.

Best,

Joe

--
Musings of a Work in Progress:
www.JoeOrozco.com/

Twitter: @ScribblingJoe





















-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7640 / Virus Database: 4613/12544 - Release Date: 07/02/16


Re: all about guns and safety was Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

Pamela Dominguez
 

The development and manufacture of them, and the continual new development of new things concerning them and how they work. Pam.

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeremy
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 11:29 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

Matt, you're not understanding. I'm actually trying to contribute to the
discussion by asking what part of guns has to do with technology for me and
others to learn from, but all I'm getting is that the subject matter is
appropriate for the list. I know that now. At this point, if I get more of
the same and no one posts any technology related information, I'm going to
assume guns probably don't have much to do with technology.

JR

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On Behalf Of
Matt
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 8:25 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car
Involved In Fatal Accident

Well guns in general might not be on topic but how they work and so on is
and also this list deals with blindness issues as well so guns and blind
people using them is on topic but we was going to try to move this to the
chat list but you keep bringing up why it is on topic or off topic. If you
need a better explanation then I suggest you write Carlos off list to
explain it better!


Matt.from.florida@...

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On Behalf Of
Jeremy
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 10:57 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car
Involved In Fatal Accident

I'm actually making a friendly request for the gun enthusists on the list to
help me understand what facet of guns is technology related? This is a
friendly request though it may come off as a challenge. Again, I think I
might learn something I had not considered in the past.

JR

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On Behalf Of
Carlos
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 7:36 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car
Involved In Fatal Accident

Are guns not technology? As you say, just about anything can be considered
technology. Anything manufactured for use as a tool qualifies as technology
and while I agree that there should be a reasonable common sense line in
defining how it relates to the list, it certainly doesn't only apply to
computers and electronics even taking that into account.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeremy" <jeremy.richards7@...>
To: <main@TechTalk.groups.io>
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 10:21 AM
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car
Involved In Fatal Accident


Ok, but just so I learn something, what makes the gun topic tech related?

JR

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Joe
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 7:17 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car
Involved In Fatal Accident

Hell, can we keep the gun talk on this list for now? One less list to
subscribe to, and I think Carlos has the right of it in considering
guns as technology. Just my two cents.

Joe

--
Musings of a Work in Progress:
www.JoeOrozco.com/

Twitter: @ScribblingJoe

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Carlos
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 8:26 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car
Involved In Fatal Accident

Generally electronic and accessible technology is what most members
are interested in discussing, but I don't object to other types of
technology being discussed within reason. It is a general technology
discussion list, not exclusively for discussing computer related
technology. However, I expect people to use a bit of common sense.
Science provides technology, but it is not technology. We will handle
unusual topics on an individual basis, but basically as long as it
does not strain the credulity and patience of most members, I am
willing to be flexible and open minded. Of course, if a slightly
offbeat topic seems to be dragging on for too long or irritating too
many members, I may request that we move on at some point.
Also, while the majority of members are blind and I will not go out of
my way to promote the list in the sighted community, I have no
objections to sighted individuals who might wish to subscribe and
participate.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeremy" <jeremy.richards7@...>
To: <main@TechTalk.groups.io>
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 7:51 AM
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car
Involved In Fatal Accident


Hi Carlos,

In hopes of not stepping on toes, I think you might want to define
what is meant by technology as it relates to this list. I don't think
most would consider guns technology in terms of the scope of blind
members wanting to know about computer sciences and general computing.
As is, it appears that just about anything can be considered
technology is
one thinks about it.
Would the study of ants be considered technology if an electronic
device is used to watch them at work? Would Woman's make-up be on
topic on this list if someone twists him or herself in pretzels to
box up a question using a technology slant? I think most list members
consider computers and all they do for us as on topic, but
seismographs and oscilloscopes might not be as relevant. ...Just
looking for a bit more clarity.

JR

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Carlos
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 4:12 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk] Self-Driving
Car Involved In Fatal Accident

Guns are most certainly technology and I personally don't have a
problem with the discussion, but I believe some members might not be
quite as understanding so we might want to close this topic or move
it to the chat list as was suggested.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt" <matt.from.florida@...>
To: <main@TechTalk.groups.io>
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 1:42 AM
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk] Self-Driving
Car Involved In Fatal Accident


Well it not just because it a gun thread if it was about guns and
the technology that could be implemted on them then it would be on
topic.
But just guns in general no . or if it is abut guns and blindness it
would be on topic. As carlos is fairly flexable and most anything
technology wise or blindness related is on topic . But I have no
problem about moving to the chat room.


Matt.from.florida@...

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Jeremy
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 1:31 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk] Self-Driving
Car Involved In Fatal Accident

It might be time for the chat list as this topic has now morphed
into some sort of gun thread.

JR

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Matt
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 10:28 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk] Self-Driving
Car Involved In Fatal Accident

Well this is true on single action revolvers of today and it is
still the safety way is to let the hammer set on an empty chamber.
Now you could do the same for a double action as well let it set on
the empty chamber but you don't have to . As the trigger pull unless
modified is usually a fairly heavy pull anyhow. . but the safest way
is not to put your finger on the trigger till you are ready to pull
it. they really have 4types of revolvers as I know. They are single
shot, single action, double action only and DASA (Double action plus
single
action) another words you can just pull the trigger or you can cock
the hammer and pull the trigger. Your choice. Most double action
only does not have an external hammer.
Now I was brought up with guns and had them around me and learn at
every early age about them and how to handle them. But you need to
get training on handling them and using them as well as training on
the laws and how to protect yourself with them. it is much more than
just going out and buying gun. This is just stupid. I not a big fan
of most regulation but some I am and some I have no problem with
them at
all.
But I don't know if we are not sort of straying off topic and off
the the subject as well so this might need to be moved to the chat room.


Matt.from.florida@...


-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of James Bentley
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 1:00 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

You can't even pull the trigger on a single action revolver unless
the hammer is cocked back in to the firing position. You never cock
the gun unless you intend to discharge it.

Most double action revolvers do not have a safety because the gun still
needs to be cocked before it can be fired. Or, the necessary trigger
travel to discharge the gun is so great that it would be almost
impossible to accidentily pull the trigger far enough to shoot the gun.

James



-----Original Message-----
From: Matt
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 11:33 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

You can on most all pistols you cannot on revolvers the safety is
not to pull the trigger.


Matt.from.florida@...

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Pamela Dominguez
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 10:26 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

I think you can lock the trigger. Pam.

-----Original Message-----
From: Rajmund
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 6:19 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

My problem with a gun would be, what if I accidently trigger it in
my pocket? Or sit on it, or whatever?
Knife, cane, spray, they're all good, but I'd be worried with a gun.
Sent from a BrailleNote

----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt" <matt.from.florida@...
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Date sent: Fri, 1 Jul 2016 18:12:42 -0400
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

Nothing wrong with pepper spray in certain events but you don't take
pepper spray to a gun fight or a knife fight or even a baseball bat
fight. If you did you would be on the losing end of the fight for
sure!
You can have lots of things in your protection tool box! Pepper
spray is one of them. But it should not be the only thing. You
should have a knife , stun gun or Taser and a gun for sure a good
old fashion hickory cane with a good hook to it that is very pointed
at the end of the hook is good or asord cane is good. But a water
gun is not much good unless you have something besides water in it.



Matt.from.florida@...


-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Rajmund
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 4:55 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

Hi All,
Speaking of protection, I'd feel safer with a bottle of pepper spray
myself, too. I have worries about guns myself, but the good old
pepper spray.

Sent from a BrailleNote

----- Original Message -----
From: "Laz" <laz@...
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Date sent: Fri, 1 Jul 2016 14:55:52 -0400
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

Gerald, I really hope you're just joking with all this drivel. I
know one of these so-called "blind extremists" who carries a gun and
he carries it for protection only. The times he has shot it in
public was because he was being threatened by four sighted extremist
thugs also known as criminals, who were threatening to not only rob
him but cause him physical harm. He took out his gun and shot
once, straight up into the air. Yes, the extremist thugs quickly
ran away in fright and I hope they also needed to do some laundry
quickly
afterward.
Who
knows what would have happened to my friend if he hadn't been
legally carrying his weapon. But I know I'm wasting my time with
telling you that as you're not for the individual and his rights but
for some other agenda instead. BTW there are more deaths due to
automobile accidents than there are due to shootings so this brings
it back around to your glass half full attitude aimed at
self-driving cars which have caused how many deaths so far...

Laz

On 7/1/16, Gerald Levy <bwaylimited@...> wrote:

That's a damn good question. Why, indeed, are some blind extremists
allowed

to walk around with guns? Oh, excuse me, it's their constitutional
right.
Never mind that they place the rest of us at risk. It's bad enough
that terrorists and sociopaths are allowed to buy and own firearms.
But blind
consumers as well? No wonder this country is a screwed up mess that
has become beholden to dangerous demagogues like Donald Trump.

Gerald



-----Original Message-----
From: Carlos
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 1:45 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

It is nonsense because it is simply not possible. And if the
lawmakers were so determined to put a halt to any technology that is
not 100% safe and foolproof, there are many types of technology we
would not have access to in modern society. If the lawmakers in
Washington care so much about keeping dangerous technology out of
the hands of the blind, then why are there several blind individuals
who are still being allowed to legally own firearms?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gerald Levy" <bwaylimited@...
To: <main@TechTalk.groups.io
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 1:38 PM
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident



You may think that making self-driving cars 100% foolproof is nonsense.
But
you can bet that the lawmakers in Washington and elsewhere won't see
it that way. They will demand that self-driving vehicles be made as
close to 100% foolproof as possible before they consider enacting
legislation that would allow blind drivers to operate them without
the accompaniment of a sighted driver. That's just the realities of
politics in a predominantly sighted world.

Gerald



-----Original Message-----
From: Carlos
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 1:11 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

Who knows when blind people will be allowed to manage these types of
cars.
Will it be any time soon? Probably not, but there is a difference
between soon and never. But as far as I'm concerned, the other
issue here is this ridiculous assumption that somehow the technology
should be or ever can be made 100% safe and foolproof. That is just
nonsense and trying to predict the future of the technology based on
one accident or even several is just more nonsense.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt" <matt.from.florida@...
To: <main@TechTalk.groups.io
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 12:59 PM
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident


Well I usually don't or try not to look at things with a half empty
blass but a half full one. But in some cases this is just not
possible. I have to agree with him on this Gerald . It is also
not just the US legislature but from state to state. Just like all
driving laws vary from state to state..
It
is called states' rights and there forth each state will more than
likely implement it on law on driving driverless cars. I also think
they would require very special training even for the sited but
certainly for the blind person as well! I just don't see the blind
being able to do this in my life time and I hope to be here around
another 30 years. I am coming up on my 58th birthday.


Matt.from.florida@...

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Gerald Levy
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 12:49 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident


It really doesn't matter what caused the accident. The bottom line
is that it will be a very long time, if ever, before blind consumers
are allowed to operate one of these gizmos by themselves. One fatal
accident is still one fatal accident too many. These vehicles must
be made 100% safe and foolproof before the powers that be in
Washington will let blind drivers behind the wheel without the
accompaniment of a sighted driver in the passenger's seat. Sorry to
throw water on your parade.

Gerald



-----Original Message-----
From: Jeremy
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 12:26 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

Again, another reflexive post of yours. There's lots of reasons why
this could have happened. It is likely these multiple car
manufacturers are using different gPS databases and supporting
software, as well as other yet to be determined reasons, so what
happened here may not happen to other researchers who are using more
developed databases--the results depend on lots of variables. The
Google car has not had this type of history, and the single accident
it had was due to a human disabling the computer and taking over the
driving.

Gerald, I don't think technology is for you, so you might consider
solutions which are less stressful to you.

JR

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Gerald Levy
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 9:18 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident


For those of you who are chomping at the bit to buy one of those
newfangled self-driving cars that may some day revolutionize the
lives of us blind consumers, not so fast. The race to develop a
safe and reliable self-driving vehicle suffered a major setback
recently when a Tesla all-electric self-driving car was involved in
a fatal accident that killed the driver while it was operating in
self-driving mode. I guess it's back to the drawing board:


http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/01/business/self-driving-tesla-fat
al-crash-investigation.html?_r=0

Gerald
































--
Affordably priced Accessible Talking MP3 Players, Accessible phones,
Bluetooth devices, and accessories http://www.talkingmp3players.com/
Email: laz@...
Phone: 727-498-0121
Skype: lazmesa
Personal Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/laz.mesa
Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/Talkingmp3players?_rdr















-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7640 / Virus Database: 4613/12537 - Release Date:
07/01/16

















































-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7640 / Virus Database: 4613/12544 - Release Date: 07/02/16


Re: definition for , technology, was, all about guns and safety was Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

Pamela Dominguez
 

There you go! Thank you. All of that is involved. Pam.

-----Original Message-----
From: James Bentley
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 11:09 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: definition for , technology, was, all about guns and safety was
[TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

tech·nol·o·gy


/tekˈnäləjē/


noun

noun: technology; plural noun: technologies




the application of scientific knowledge for practical purposes, especially
in industry.
"advances in computer technology"



•machinery and equipment developed from the application of scientific
knowledge.



•the branch of knowledge dealing with engineering or applied sciences.


-----Original Message-----
From: Jeremy
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 9:57 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car
Involved In Fatal Accident

I'm actually making a friendly request for the gun enthusists on the list to
help me understand what facet of guns is technology related? This is a
friendly request though it may come off as a challenge. Again, I think I
might learn something I had not considered in the past.

JR

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On Behalf Of
Carlos
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 7:36 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car
Involved In Fatal Accident

Are guns not technology? As you say, just about anything can be considered
technology. Anything manufactured for use as a tool qualifies as technology
and while I agree that there should be a reasonable common sense line in
defining how it relates to the list, it certainly doesn't only apply to
computers and electronics even taking that into account.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeremy" <jeremy.richards7@...>
To: <main@TechTalk.groups.io>
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 10:21 AM
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car
Involved In Fatal Accident


Ok, but just so I learn something, what makes the gun topic tech related?

JR

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Joe
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 7:17 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car
Involved In Fatal Accident

Hell, can we keep the gun talk on this list for now? One less list to
subscribe to, and I think Carlos has the right of it in considering
guns as technology. Just my two cents.

Joe

--
Musings of a Work in Progress:
www.JoeOrozco.com/

Twitter: @ScribblingJoe

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Carlos
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 8:26 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car
Involved In Fatal Accident

Generally electronic and accessible technology is what most members
are interested in discussing, but I don't object to other types of
technology being discussed within reason. It is a general technology
discussion list, not exclusively for discussing computer related
technology. However, I expect people to use a bit of common sense.
Science provides technology, but it is not technology. We will handle
unusual topics on an individual basis, but basically as long as it
does not strain the credulity and patience of most members, I am
willing to be flexible and open minded. Of course, if a slightly
offbeat topic seems to be dragging on for too long or irritating too
many members, I may request that we move on at some point.
Also, while the majority of members are blind and I will not go out of
my way to promote the list in the sighted community, I have no
objections to sighted individuals who might wish to subscribe and
participate.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeremy" <jeremy.richards7@...>
To: <main@TechTalk.groups.io>
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 7:51 AM
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car
Involved In Fatal Accident


Hi Carlos,

In hopes of not stepping on toes, I think you might want to define
what is meant by technology as it relates to this list. I don't think
most would consider guns technology in terms of the scope of blind
members wanting to know about computer sciences and general computing.
As is, it appears that just about anything can be considered
technology is
one thinks about it.
Would the study of ants be considered technology if an electronic
device is used to watch them at work? Would Woman's make-up be on
topic on this list if someone twists him or herself in pretzels to
box up a question using a technology slant? I think most list members
consider computers and all they do for us as on topic, but
seismographs and oscilloscopes might not be as relevant. ...Just
looking for a bit more clarity.

JR

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Carlos
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 4:12 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk] Self-Driving
Car Involved In Fatal Accident

Guns are most certainly technology and I personally don't have a
problem with the discussion, but I believe some members might not be
quite as understanding so we might want to close this topic or move
it to the chat list as was suggested.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt" <matt.from.florida@...>
To: <main@TechTalk.groups.io>
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 1:42 AM
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk] Self-Driving
Car Involved In Fatal Accident


Well it not just because it a gun thread if it was about guns and
the technology that could be implemted on them then it would be on
topic.
But just guns in general no . or if it is abut guns and blindness it
would be on topic. As carlos is fairly flexable and most anything
technology wise or blindness related is on topic . But I have no
problem about moving to the chat room.


Matt.from.florida@...

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Jeremy
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 1:31 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk] Self-Driving
Car Involved In Fatal Accident

It might be time for the chat list as this topic has now morphed
into some sort of gun thread.

JR

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Matt
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 10:28 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk] Self-Driving
Car Involved In Fatal Accident

Well this is true on single action revolvers of today and it is
still the safety way is to let the hammer set on an empty chamber.
Now you could do the same for a double action as well let it set on
the empty chamber but you don't have to . As the trigger pull unless
modified is usually a fairly heavy pull anyhow. . but the safest way
is not to put your finger on the trigger till you are ready to pull
it. they really have 4types of revolvers as I know. They are single
shot, single action, double action only and DASA (Double action plus
single
action) another words you can just pull the trigger or you can cock
the hammer and pull the trigger. Your choice. Most double action
only does not have an external hammer.
Now I was brought up with guns and had them around me and learn at
every early age about them and how to handle them. But you need to
get training on handling them and using them as well as training on
the laws and how to protect yourself with them. it is much more than
just going out and buying gun. This is just stupid. I not a big fan
of most regulation but some I am and some I have no problem with
them at
all.
But I don't know if we are not sort of straying off topic and off
the the subject as well so this might need to be moved to the chat room.


Matt.from.florida@...


-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of James Bentley
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 1:00 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

You can't even pull the trigger on a single action revolver unless
the hammer is cocked back in to the firing position. You never cock
the gun unless you intend to discharge it.

Most double action revolvers do not have a safety because the gun still
needs to be cocked before it can be fired. Or, the necessary trigger
travel to discharge the gun is so great that it would be almost
impossible to accidentily pull the trigger far enough to shoot the gun.

James



-----Original Message-----
From: Matt
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 11:33 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

You can on most all pistols you cannot on revolvers the safety is
not to pull the trigger.


Matt.from.florida@...

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Pamela Dominguez
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 10:26 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

I think you can lock the trigger. Pam.

-----Original Message-----
From: Rajmund
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 6:19 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

My problem with a gun would be, what if I accidently trigger it in
my pocket? Or sit on it, or whatever?
Knife, cane, spray, they're all good, but I'd be worried with a gun.
Sent from a BrailleNote

----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt" <matt.from.florida@...
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Date sent: Fri, 1 Jul 2016 18:12:42 -0400
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

Nothing wrong with pepper spray in certain events but you don't take
pepper spray to a gun fight or a knife fight or even a baseball bat
fight. If you did you would be on the losing end of the fight for
sure!
You can have lots of things in your protection tool box! Pepper
spray is one of them. But it should not be the only thing. You
should have a knife , stun gun or Taser and a gun for sure a good
old fashion hickory cane with a good hook to it that is very pointed
at the end of the hook is good or asord cane is good. But a water
gun is not much good unless you have something besides water in it.



Matt.from.florida@...


-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Rajmund
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 4:55 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

Hi All,
Speaking of protection, I'd feel safer with a bottle of pepper spray
myself, too. I have worries about guns myself, but the good old
pepper spray.

Sent from a BrailleNote

----- Original Message -----
From: "Laz" <laz@...
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Date sent: Fri, 1 Jul 2016 14:55:52 -0400
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

Gerald, I really hope you're just joking with all this drivel. I
know one of these so-called "blind extremists" who carries a gun and
he carries it for protection only. The times he has shot it in
public was because he was being threatened by four sighted extremist
thugs also known as criminals, who were threatening to not only rob
him but cause him physical harm. He took out his gun and shot
once, straight up into the air. Yes, the extremist thugs quickly
ran away in fright and I hope they also needed to do some laundry
quickly
afterward.
Who
knows what would have happened to my friend if he hadn't been
legally carrying his weapon. But I know I'm wasting my time with
telling you that as you're not for the individual and his rights but
for some other agenda instead. BTW there are more deaths due to
automobile accidents than there are due to shootings so this brings
it back around to your glass half full attitude aimed at
self-driving cars which have caused how many deaths so far...

Laz

On 7/1/16, Gerald Levy <bwaylimited@...> wrote:

That's a damn good question. Why, indeed, are some blind extremists
allowed

to walk around with guns? Oh, excuse me, it's their constitutional
right.
Never mind that they place the rest of us at risk. It's bad enough
that terrorists and sociopaths are allowed to buy and own firearms.
But blind
consumers as well? No wonder this country is a screwed up mess that
has become beholden to dangerous demagogues like Donald Trump.

Gerald



-----Original Message-----
From: Carlos
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 1:45 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

It is nonsense because it is simply not possible. And if the
lawmakers were so determined to put a halt to any technology that is
not 100% safe and foolproof, there are many types of technology we
would not have access to in modern society. If the lawmakers in
Washington care so much about keeping dangerous technology out of
the hands of the blind, then why are there several blind individuals
who are still being allowed to legally own firearms?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gerald Levy" <bwaylimited@...
To: <main@TechTalk.groups.io
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 1:38 PM
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident



You may think that making self-driving cars 100% foolproof is nonsense.
But
you can bet that the lawmakers in Washington and elsewhere won't see
it that way. They will demand that self-driving vehicles be made as
close to 100% foolproof as possible before they consider enacting
legislation that would allow blind drivers to operate them without
the accompaniment of a sighted driver. That's just the realities of
politics in a predominantly sighted world.

Gerald



-----Original Message-----
From: Carlos
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 1:11 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

Who knows when blind people will be allowed to manage these types of
cars.
Will it be any time soon? Probably not, but there is a difference
between soon and never. But as far as I'm concerned, the other
issue here is this ridiculous assumption that somehow the technology
should be or ever can be made 100% safe and foolproof. That is just
nonsense and trying to predict the future of the technology based on
one accident or even several is just more nonsense.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt" <matt.from.florida@...
To: <main@TechTalk.groups.io
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 12:59 PM
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident


Well I usually don't or try not to look at things with a half empty
blass but a half full one. But in some cases this is just not
possible. I have to agree with him on this Gerald . It is also
not just the US legislature but from state to state. Just like all
driving laws vary from state to state..
It
is called states' rights and there forth each state will more than
likely implement it on law on driving driverless cars. I also think
they would require very special training even for the sited but
certainly for the blind person as well! I just don't see the blind
being able to do this in my life time and I hope to be here around
another 30 years. I am coming up on my 58th birthday.


Matt.from.florida@...

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Gerald Levy
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 12:49 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident


It really doesn't matter what caused the accident. The bottom line
is that it will be a very long time, if ever, before blind consumers
are allowed to operate one of these gizmos by themselves. One fatal
accident is still one fatal accident too many. These vehicles must
be made 100% safe and foolproof before the powers that be in
Washington will let blind drivers behind the wheel without the
accompaniment of a sighted driver in the passenger's seat. Sorry to
throw water on your parade.

Gerald



-----Original Message-----
From: Jeremy
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 12:26 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

Again, another reflexive post of yours. There's lots of reasons why
this could have happened. It is likely these multiple car
manufacturers are using different gPS databases and supporting
software, as well as other yet to be determined reasons, so what
happened here may not happen to other researchers who are using more
developed databases--the results depend on lots of variables. The
Google car has not had this type of history, and the single accident
it had was due to a human disabling the computer and taking over the
driving.

Gerald, I don't think technology is for you, so you might consider
solutions which are less stressful to you.

JR

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Gerald Levy
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 9:18 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident


For those of you who are chomping at the bit to buy one of those
newfangled self-driving cars that may some day revolutionize the
lives of us blind consumers, not so fast. The race to develop a
safe and reliable self-driving vehicle suffered a major setback
recently when a Tesla all-electric self-driving car was involved in
a fatal accident that killed the driver while it was operating in
self-driving mode. I guess it's back to the drawing board:


http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/01/business/self-driving-tesla-fat
al-crash-investigation.html?_r=0

Gerald
































--
Affordably priced Accessible Talking MP3 Players, Accessible phones,
Bluetooth devices, and accessories http://www.talkingmp3players.com/
Email: laz@...
Phone: 727-498-0121
Skype: lazmesa
Personal Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/laz.mesa
Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/Talkingmp3players?_rdr















-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7640 / Virus Database: 4613/12537 - Release Date:
07/01/16













































-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7640 / Virus Database: 4613/12544 - Release Date: 07/02/16


Re: all about guns and safety was Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

Pamela Dominguez
 

I agree with you. Everything, just about, is some kind of technology, and has its own technology history since whatever it is was invented. Pam.

-----Original Message-----
From: Carlos
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 10:35 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

Are guns not technology? As you say, just about anything can be considered
technology. Anything manufactured for use as a tool qualifies as technology
and while I agree that there should be a reasonable common sense line in
defining how it relates to the list, it certainly doesn't only apply to
computers and electronics even taking that into account.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeremy" <jeremy.richards7@...>
To: <main@TechTalk.groups.io>
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 10:21 AM
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car
Involved In Fatal Accident


Ok, but just so I learn something, what makes the gun topic tech related?

JR

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On Behalf Of
Joe
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 7:17 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car
Involved In Fatal Accident

Hell, can we keep the gun talk on this list for now? One less list to
subscribe to, and I think Carlos has the right of it in considering guns as
technology. Just my two cents.

Joe

--
Musings of a Work in Progress:
www.JoeOrozco.com/

Twitter: @ScribblingJoe

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On Behalf Of
Carlos
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 8:26 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car
Involved In Fatal Accident

Generally electronic and accessible technology is what most members are
interested in discussing, but I don't object to other types of technology
being discussed within reason. It is a general technology discussion list,
not exclusively for discussing computer related technology. However, I
expect people to use a bit of common sense. Science provides technology,
but it is not technology. We will handle unusual topics on an individual
basis, but basically as long as it does not strain the credulity and
patience of most members, I am willing to be flexible and open minded. Of
course, if a slightly offbeat topic seems to be dragging on for too long or
irritating too many members, I may request that we move on at some point.
Also, while the majority of members are blind and I will not go out of my
way to promote the list in the sighted community, I have no objections to
sighted individuals who might wish to subscribe and participate.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeremy" <jeremy.richards7@...>
To: <main@TechTalk.groups.io>
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 7:51 AM
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car
Involved In Fatal Accident


Hi Carlos,

In hopes of not stepping on toes, I think you might want to define
what is meant by technology as it relates to this list. I don't think
most would consider guns technology in terms of the scope of blind
members wanting to know about computer sciences and general computing.
As is, it appears that just about anything can be considered
technology is
one thinks about it.
Would the study of ants be considered technology if an electronic
device is used to watch them at work? Would Woman's make-up be on
topic on this list if someone twists him or herself in pretzels to box
up a question using a technology slant? I think most list members
consider computers and all they do for us as on topic, but
seismographs and oscilloscopes might not be as relevant. ...Just
looking for a bit more clarity.

JR

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Carlos
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 4:12 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car
Involved In Fatal Accident

Guns are most certainly technology and I personally don't have a
problem with the discussion, but I believe some members might not be
quite as understanding so we might want to close this topic or move it
to the chat list as was suggested.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt" <matt.from.florida@...>
To: <main@TechTalk.groups.io>
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 1:42 AM
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car
Involved In Fatal Accident


Well it not just because it a gun thread if it was about guns and the
technology that could be implemted on them then it would be on topic.
But just guns in general no . or if it is abut guns and blindness it
would be on topic. As carlos is fairly flexable and most anything
technology wise or blindness related is on topic . But I have no
problem about moving to the chat room.


Matt.from.florida@...

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Jeremy
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 1:31 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk] Self-Driving
Car Involved In Fatal Accident

It might be time for the chat list as this topic has now morphed into
some sort of gun thread.

JR

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Matt
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 10:28 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk] Self-Driving
Car Involved In Fatal Accident

Well this is true on single action revolvers of today and it is still
the safety way is to let the hammer set on an empty chamber. Now you
could do the same for a double action as well let it set on the empty
chamber but you don't have to . As the trigger pull unless modified
is usually a fairly heavy pull anyhow. . but the safest way is not to
put your finger on the trigger till you are ready to pull it. they
really have 4types of revolvers as I know. They are single shot,
single action, double action only and DASA (Double action plus single
action) another words you can just pull the trigger or you can cock
the hammer and pull the trigger. Your choice. Most double action only
does not have an external hammer.
Now I was brought up with guns and had them around me and learn at
every early age about them and how to handle them. But you need to
get training on handling them and using them as well as training on
the laws and how to protect yourself with them. it is much more than
just going out and buying gun. This is just stupid. I not a big fan
of most regulation but some I am and some I have no problem with them
at
all.
But I don't know if we are not sort of straying off topic and off the
the subject as well so this might need to be moved to the chat room.


Matt.from.florida@...


-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of James Bentley
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 1:00 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

You can't even pull the trigger on a single action revolver unless
the hammer is cocked back in to the firing position. You never cock
the gun unless you intend to discharge it.

Most double action revolvers do not have a safety because the gun still
needs to be cocked before it can be fired. Or, the necessary trigger
travel to discharge the gun is so great that it would be almost
impossible to accidentily pull the trigger far enough to shoot the gun.

James



-----Original Message-----
From: Matt
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 11:33 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

You can on most all pistols you cannot on revolvers the safety is not
to pull the trigger.


Matt.from.florida@...

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Pamela Dominguez
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 10:26 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

I think you can lock the trigger. Pam.

-----Original Message-----
From: Rajmund
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 6:19 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

My problem with a gun would be, what if I accidently trigger it in my
pocket? Or sit on it, or whatever?
Knife, cane, spray, they're all good, but I'd be worried with a gun.
Sent from a BrailleNote

----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt" <matt.from.florida@...
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Date sent: Fri, 1 Jul 2016 18:12:42 -0400
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

Nothing wrong with pepper spray in certain events but you don't take
pepper spray to a gun fight or a knife fight or even a baseball bat
fight. If you did you would be on the losing end of the fight for
sure!
You can have lots of things in your protection tool box! Pepper spray
is one of them. But it should not be the only thing. You should
have a knife , stun gun or Taser and a gun for sure a good old
fashion hickory cane with a good hook to it that is very pointed at
the end of the hook is good or asord cane is good. But a water gun
is not much good unless you have something besides water in it.



Matt.from.florida@...


-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Rajmund
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 4:55 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

Hi All,
Speaking of protection, I'd feel safer with a bottle of pepper spray
myself, too. I have worries about guns myself, but the good old
pepper spray.

Sent from a BrailleNote

----- Original Message -----
From: "Laz" <laz@...
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Date sent: Fri, 1 Jul 2016 14:55:52 -0400
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

Gerald, I really hope you're just joking with all this drivel. I
know one of these so-called "blind extremists" who carries a gun and
he carries it for protection only. The times he has shot it in
public was because he was being threatened by four sighted extremist
thugs also known as criminals, who were threatening to not only rob
him but cause him physical harm. He took out his gun and shot once,
straight up into the air. Yes, the extremist thugs quickly ran away
in fright and I hope they also needed to do some laundry quickly
afterward.
Who
knows what would have happened to my friend if he hadn't been legally
carrying his weapon. But I know I'm wasting my time with telling you
that as you're not for the individual and his rights but for some
other agenda instead. BTW there are more deaths due to automobile
accidents than there are due to shootings so this brings it back
around to your glass half full attitude aimed at self-driving cars
which have caused how many deaths so far...

Laz

On 7/1/16, Gerald Levy <bwaylimited@...> wrote:

That's a damn good question. Why, indeed, are some blind extremists
allowed

to walk around with guns? Oh, excuse me, it's their constitutional
right.
Never mind that they place the rest of us at risk. It's bad enough
that terrorists and sociopaths are allowed to buy and own firearms.
But blind
consumers as well? No wonder this country is a screwed up mess that
has become beholden to dangerous demagogues like Donald Trump.

Gerald



-----Original Message-----
From: Carlos
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 1:45 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

It is nonsense because it is simply not possible. And if the
lawmakers were so determined to put a halt to any technology that is
not 100% safe and foolproof, there are many types of technology we
would not have access to in modern society. If the lawmakers in
Washington care so much about keeping dangerous technology out of the
hands of the blind, then why are there several blind individuals who
are still being allowed to legally own firearms?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gerald Levy" <bwaylimited@...
To: <main@TechTalk.groups.io
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 1:38 PM
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident



You may think that making self-driving cars 100% foolproof is nonsense.
But
you can bet that the lawmakers in Washington and elsewhere won't see
it that way. They will demand that self-driving vehicles be made as
close to 100% foolproof as possible before they consider enacting
legislation that would allow blind drivers to operate them without
the accompaniment of a sighted driver. That's just the realities of
politics in a predominantly sighted world.

Gerald



-----Original Message-----
From: Carlos
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 1:11 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

Who knows when blind people will be allowed to manage these types of
cars.
Will it be any time soon? Probably not, but there is a difference
between soon and never. But as far as I'm concerned, the other issue
here is this ridiculous assumption that somehow the technology should
be or ever can be made 100% safe and foolproof. That is just
nonsense and trying to predict the future of the technology based on
one accident or even several is just more nonsense.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt" <matt.from.florida@...
To: <main@TechTalk.groups.io
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 12:59 PM
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident


Well I usually don't or try not to look at things with a half empty
blass but a half full one. But in some cases this is just not
possible. I have to agree with him on this Gerald . It is also not
just the US legislature but from state to state. Just like all
driving laws vary from state to state..
It
is called states' rights and there forth each state will more than
likely implement it on law on driving driverless cars. I also think
they would require very special training even for the sited but
certainly for the blind person as well! I just don't see the blind
being able to do this in my life time and I hope to be here around
another 30 years. I am coming up on my 58th birthday.


Matt.from.florida@...

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Gerald Levy
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 12:49 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident


It really doesn't matter what caused the accident. The bottom line
is that it will be a very long time, if ever, before blind consumers
are allowed to operate one of these gizmos by themselves. One fatal
accident is still one fatal accident too many. These vehicles must
be made 100% safe and foolproof before the powers that be in
Washington will let blind drivers behind the wheel without the
accompaniment of a sighted driver in the passenger's seat. Sorry to
throw water on your parade.

Gerald



-----Original Message-----
From: Jeremy
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 12:26 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

Again, another reflexive post of yours. There's lots of reasons why
this could have happened. It is likely these multiple car
manufacturers are using different gPS databases and supporting
software, as well as other yet to be determined reasons, so what
happened here may not happen to other researchers who are using more
developed databases--the results depend on lots of variables. The
Google car has not had this type of history, and the single accident
it had was due to a human disabling the computer and taking over the
driving.

Gerald, I don't think technology is for you, so you might consider
solutions which are less stressful to you.

JR

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Gerald Levy
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 9:18 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident


For those of you who are chomping at the bit to buy one of those
newfangled self-driving cars that may some day revolutionize the
lives of us blind consumers, not so fast. The race to develop a safe
and reliable self-driving vehicle suffered a major setback recently
when a Tesla all-electric self-driving car was involved in a fatal
accident that killed the driver while it was operating in
self-driving mode. I guess it's back to the drawing board:


http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/01/business/self-driving-tesla-fat
al-crash-investigation.html?_r=0

Gerald
































--
Affordably priced Accessible Talking MP3 Players, Accessible phones,
Bluetooth devices, and accessories http://www.talkingmp3players.com/
Email: laz@...
Phone: 727-498-0121
Skype: lazmesa
Personal Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/laz.mesa
Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/Talkingmp3players?_rdr















-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7640 / Virus Database: 4613/12537 - Release Date:
07/01/16







































-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7640 / Virus Database: 4613/12544 - Release Date: 07/02/16


Re: Gameday Audio Question for a Friend.

Marie <magpie.mn@...>
 

I listened to the last two games on Game day Audio. Using Windows 10, Jaws 17 and IE 11. I do not have any problems with this setup. Are they trying to listen on the MLB website? I have found it very screen reader friendly. If I can help further please let me know what he is using to access the site.
Marie
 
 

Sent: Saturday, July 2, 2016 10:57 AM
Subject: [TechTalk] Gameday Audio Question for a Friend.
 
Is anyone using Windows 10, having difficulty using Gameday Audio? I have a friend who is using it and his feed stops and he can't seem to get back in? It still works fine on his WindowsXP Computer and his iPhone.
 
Thanks for any help regarding this.
 
Barb


Re: How frequently do you use the Windows Narrator screen reader? #poll

Pamela Dominguez
 

Okay, I guess that leaves me out, because I don’t have accounts on any of these mail things.  I don’t understand any of that.  Pam.
 

From: Carlos
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 9:59 AM
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] How frequently do you use the Windows Narrator screen reader? #poll
 
Your groups.io account.  If you have never logged in to groups.io, you will have to assign a password to your account before you can log in.  LOL if you don't feel like dealing with that nonsense right now don't worry about it.
----- Original Message -----
From: Matt
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 9:55 AM
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] How frequently do you use the Windows Narrator screen reader? #poll
 

Well you got to log in so what is the deal with that ? what am I logging into?!

 

 

 

From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On Behalf Of Carlos
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 9:49 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] How frequently do you use the Windows Narrator screen reader? #poll

 

LOL click on the

link and choose an option to make it official.  This way everyone can also view the results of the poll.

----- Original Message -----

From: Loy

Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 9:45 AM

Subject: Re: [TechTalk] How frequently do you use the Windows Narrator screen reader? #poll

 

I never use narrator.

----- Original Message -----

From: Carlos

Sent: Saturday, July 2, 2016 9:39 AM

Subject: [TechTalk] How frequently do you use the Windows Narrator screen reader? #poll

 

A new poll has been created:

Just for fun and because we rarely use this feature.

 

1. I only use Narrator for emergencies
2. I never use Narrator
3. I use Narrator regularly

Vote Now

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7640 / Virus Database: 4613/12544 - Release Date: 07/02/16


Re: How frequently do you use the Windows Narrator screen reader? #poll

Pamela Dominguez
 

I never use narrator.  I can’t make it do anything except say its name.  Pam.
 

From: Carlos
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 9:39 AM
Subject: [TechTalk] How frequently do you use the Windows Narrator screen reader? #poll
 

A new poll has been created:

Just for fun and because we rarely use this feature.

 

1. I only use Narrator for emergencies
2. I never use Narrator
3. I use Narrator regularly

Vote Now

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7640 / Virus Database: 4613/12544 - Release Date: 07/02/16


Re: Making progress on accessibility with the Windows 10 Anniversary Update | Microsoft Accessibility Blog #article

Aidan <aidan.smarttalk@...>
 

I must agree with jean and carlos here. As long as we as blind people
keep making excuses for microsoft then we should not be surprise where
it goes. Its not exceptable what they are doing for the last few
years, and nothing they say will change my attidute towards them. Now
its time for practise, to show us what they really can do. Its easy to
talk. There are many developers asking for feedback and doing nothing
about it wich prove that feedback alone is no way to be sure if the
product will improve. Microsoft does not care about accessibility and
I keep to that statement until they prove me wrong. These smaller
changes we see now is just to keep us in a so called more happyer zone
because they know there are people like rj wich will buy into that
nonsense. And why can we not complain? We have every write to
complain. Accessibility is a rite, and we shall keep enforcing and
demanding it. Yes your attitude must be write but in this case ms is
more than aware of the reality of the situation. They know they are
guilty but they won't admit it to the public. To keep saying things
like "at least they will do something" is a waste of time and it bring
us no where. Either they deliver or the other screenreaders get
stronger. And why shall I use the simpel ej browser anyway if firefox
and chrome work so well?

On 02/07/2016, Carlos <carlos1106@...> wrote:
I didn't say that other screen readers would just disappear, but I believe
that third-party developers might have less incentive to invest much time
and effort in serious development if a full-blown screen reader were
built-in. The screen reader market already has a limited margin for profit

and Microsoft would always have the edge in terms of adding new features if

they became seriously invested in Narrator. Consumers might also have less

incentive to purchase third-party screen readers if most of the
functionality they need were already included in Windows. Windows is not
Android. The alternatives are either very expensive or free in the case of

NVDA. In the case of more expensive screen readers, consumers would almost

always choose the fully functional option that is built-in and does not cost

nearly $1000. Organizations which provide sponsorship for obtaining
computers would also have less reason to purchase screen readers like JAWS.

Of course some people might think this is a good thing, but if sales of JAWS

were to drop significantly, eventually it might make continuing to produce
the product unviable which in turn means fewer options. It is hard to say
whether NVDA would be affected, but the development of NVDA is supported
partially by donations and partially by the motivation of the developers,
either of which could potentially be affected by the inclusion of a
full-blown screen reader in Windows.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rajmund" <brajmund2000@...>
To: <main@TechTalk.groups.io>
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 2:25 PM
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Making progress on accessibility with the Windows 10

Anniversary Update | Microsoft Accessibility Blog


Hi Carlos,
I deleted your original post, but, know how you're saying Mac? To
my knowledge, talkBack is built into android, yet, there's
another one called ShinePlus. I wonder, if, say, MS made a fully
built in screen reader, as long as windows was opened, I can't
see why something like would NVDA died. Apple is different, as
their system is not opened.

Sent from a BrailleNote

----- Original Message -----
From: "RJ Sandefur" <manbatsandefur@...
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Date sent: Sat, 2 Jul 2016 18:11:19 +0000
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Making progress on accessibility with the
Windows 10 Anniversary Update | Microsoft Accessibility Blog

No it wouldn't. RJ


On 7/2/2016 1:53 PM, Carlos wrote:
Whether Narrator becomes a full-blown screen reader some day, it
has a
long
way to go. And in my opinion, making Narrator a full-blown
screen reader
would only stifle development for the competition. It is good
to have
options and Macs are a good example of what happens when a
full-blown
screen
reader is built-in to the operating system.
----- Original Message -----
From: "RJ Sandefur" <manbatsandefur@...
To: <main@TechTalk.groups.io
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 1:41 PM
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Making progress on accessibility with
the
Windows 10
Anniversary Update | Microsoft Accessibility Blog


I am not usually one to use this type of strong language, but
really?
How do you think NVDA and Jaws got to where they are? Feedback!
Let's
all give narrator a chance. Microsoft alone won't make the
screenreader,
but together, the end users,(Us the blind community) will make
Narrator
a screenreader which could even beat out voice over if we really
wanted
it bad enough. RJ


On 7/2/2016 1:19 PM, Marie wrote:
I find Narrator useful on occasion, but it is far from being a
full
screen reader and I would hate it if they made it like the Apple
devices where it is your only choice.
Marie


-----Original Message----- From: Carlos
Sent: Saturday, July 2, 2016 5:33 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Making progress on accessibility with
the
Windows 10 Anniversary Update | Microsoft Accessibility Blog

If they are going somewhere with Narrator, then they should
simply
release a
major upgrade when it is ready to be used as a full-blown screen
reader. At
this point it is wasted effort to introduce these minor changes
since
it is
still not functional enough to be used by most on a daily basis.
Gradually
introducing features that most people probably won't use because
there
is a
better free alternative seems like effort that could be more
productively
invested somewhere else for now.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeremy" <jeremy.richards7@...
To: <main@TechTalk.groups.io
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 8:00 AM
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Making progress on accessibility with
the
Windows 10
Anniversary Update | Microsoft Accessibility Blog


Yeah, but they might be going somewhere with it which we don't
know
about
just yet. Some of the features discussed in the article seem as
though
they
may have been influenced by general screen reader tech.

They might first want to start with the Windows OS then
ultimately
create a
VoiceOver competitor for future Windows devices.

With technology advancing as it does, why not accept the help
from
one of
the biggest computer software developers in the world?
Furthermore,
this
development might yield discoveries which will help with other
related
disabilities experienced by an aging population.

JR

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io]
On
Behalf Of
Carlos
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 4:03 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Making progress on accessibility with
the
Windows 10
Anniversary Update | Microsoft Accessibility Blog

And honestly, the focus on Narrator seems like wasted time and
somewhat
excessive in my opinion. How many people really use Narrator on
a
daily
basis? The fact is that most users only run Narrator in an
emergency
or to
finish setting up Windows. It is useful and convenient to have,
but
for
most it does not provide enough functionality to be used as a
primary
screen
reader. These days those who cannot afford one of the expensive
screen
readers will most likely use NVDA. And Narrator has a long way
to go
before
it can compete with NVDA. That being the case, I believe their
time
and
effort would be better spent on improving accessibility in other
areas. If
NVDA did not exist, then the efforts to improve Narrator might
seem
more
significant, but again in my opinion at this time, it just seems
like
wasted
effort.

----- Original Message -----
From: Gene <mailto:gsasner@...
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 6:23 AM
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Making progress on accessibility with
the
Windows 10
Anniversary Update | Microsoft Accessibility Blog

I have defended Microsoft for years when I thought they deserved
it.
I will
not defend them in their accessibility implementation of
accessibility in
Windows 10. My thoughts on the blog entry are below





--
Facebook: m.facebook.com/aidan.maher92
Skype: andries4451
Twitter: smarttalk7
Audioboo: www.audioboo.com/DjSpotlight


Re: FS podcast

Flor Lynch
 

I actually know that there have been at least a fair amount of defections to NVDA from JAWS. How can you expect Jonathan Mosen to dispraise an FS/VFO product, as they are still paying him in fees? (Consultants always tell their customers what they think their customers want to know, which may (or may not) be what the customers actually want to know.)

-----Original Message-----
From: Gerald Levy
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 11:24 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] FS podcast


But now that the parent company of Freedom Scientific and AI Squared owns
both JAWS and Window Eyes and thus has a virtual monopoly in the commercial
screen reader market, what incentive do they have to offer deeply discounted
prices to everyone? They have lucrative contracts with government and blind
rehab agencies that guarantee them a steady income stream, so why should
they care whether or not you can afford their products? And they have
Jonathan Mosen in their back pocket to hawk their products. Of course, he
pays nothing for JAWS or Open Book or any other FS product unlike the rest
of us in exchange for promoting them. In all the years I have been
listening to FSCasts, he has never uttered a negative comment about any FS
product, even though he is now an independent contractor and no longer works
directly for them. You would think that there is so much discontent over
FS's unfair pricing policies that there would be mass defections to NVDA,
but of course, this hasn't happened because for all of its faults, JAWS is
still the best screen reader on the market.

Gerald



-----Original Message-----
From: Matt
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 1:35 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] FS podcast

I would say different if they sold enough they would make money it might not
be at 75 bucks but it might be at a couple of hundred. . their profit margin
I sure is triple or more on the products. So they could sell to everyone for
some kind of discount. They could sell say 75 bucks for convention goers and
say 175 bucks for non goers. As the one going they could write this off
taxes as advertisement .Also here again they would be making in the long run
money off the SMA which is really just selling the product at a discounted
price instead of making you buy it at full price for the next version. This
is really all SMA is discounted price off the next version. SJMT



Matt.from.florida@...


-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On Behalf Of
Lynn White
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 1:10 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] FS podcast

Maybe it's just a simply fact that Freedom Scientific is helping to promote
people to go to conventions.


It promotes good will and gets people involved. If they sold to every
blind person the discounted price, they wouldn't make any kind of money
at all.


You would then have another screen reader possibly to fall by the wayside.


On 7/1/2016 11:48 PM, Matt wrote:
So if they are paying for the space then that would be even a another
reason
not to give the discount at all . but I sure them paying for the booth at
the convention would come under advertisement and is taking off taxes.
This
still don't explain why not offer this to everyone not just convention
goers. Like the Blind Bargains (A T Guys) they have a booth and they have
sells as well but it is not limited to just convention goers . To me it
would make sense to offer it to everyone and they would come out in the
long
run plus help a lot of people. The reason is that in the long run more
than
likely they would get the people that is buying it would keep the SMA up .
which they make good money off them the SMA itself. Which is a lot better
than it used to be since they lower the price on SMA Two years for 125
bucks
is very good and the SMA is on sale at the convention as well but it is
only
for convention goers. Too me it just don't make sense as they would be
more
than likely in the long run making money . In fact at 75 bucks I bet they
are still making money as they hope to sell enough they will make money.
I
just cannot help it I seem to have a problem with this.


Matt.from.florida@...


-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On Behalf
Of
Carolyn Arnold
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 8:07 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] FS podcast

Plus, the vendors at the conventions have to pay or the space that they
have
there.

Bye for now,

Carolyn


-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io
[mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On Behalf Of Matt
Sent: Friday, July 1, 2016 4:40 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: [TechTalk] FS podcast

Well this talks all about convention time. They have some really good
deals
but the thing is it is only for those that goes to the convention. I
personally think this is just so wrong! Why can they not offer this to
everyone!? Like Jaws is just 75 bucks but you have to go to the convention
and be registered. Why not just offer this to all the blind community? To
me
this just don't seem exactly right! I might be wrong but it should be
offered to anyone who wants it! or any of the products they are selling at
a
discount. You know not everyone can afford or even get to these places.
But
here is the podcast below.



FS podcast 128
<http://podcast.freedomscientific.com/FSCast/episodes/FSCast
128-Conference_Specials,MathML,Mike_Wood.mp3>



http://podcast.freedomscientific.com/FSCast/episodes/FSCast1
28-Conference_Specials,MathML,Mike_Wood.mp3







Matt.from.florida@...
<mailto:Matt.from.florida@...>














Re: Gun Technique, Hunting and Technology

Rob <captinlogic@...>
 

Matt <matt.from.florida@...> wrote:
Most of the people using a scope is
visuall no matter what kind of scope it is . So don't know if audio tone
would be in the mix ever.
As I recall it, Stinger anti aircraft missiles (which are handheld) emit a tone when they are locking onto a target. Beep, beep, beep, then a long steady beep once target is locked on. Seems logical that they could do something similar for rifles.
The trick would be making sure you're not shooting at something in blaze orange.


Re: Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident #article

Pamela Dominguez
 

Yes, that's what I meant, also. You actually have to do something. You can't just have the gun go off. Pam.

-----Original Message-----
From: James Bentley
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 1:00 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

You can't even pull the trigger on a single action revolver unless the
hammer is cocked back in to the firing position. You never cock the gun
unless you intend to discharge it.

Most double action revolvers do not have a safety because the gun still
needs to be cocked before it can be fired. Or, the necessary trigger
travel to discharge the gun is so great that it would be almost impossible
to accidentily pull the trigger far enough to shoot the gun.

James



-----Original Message-----
From: Matt
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 11:33 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

You can on most all pistols you cannot on revolvers the safety is not to
pull the trigger.


Matt.from.florida@...

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On Behalf Of
Pamela Dominguez
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 10:26 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

I think you can lock the trigger. Pam.

-----Original Message-----
From: Rajmund
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 6:19 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

My problem with a gun would be, what if I accidently trigger it in my
pocket? Or sit on it, or whatever?
Knife, cane, spray, they're all good, but I'd be worried with a gun.
Sent from a BrailleNote

----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt" <matt.from.florida@...
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Date sent: Fri, 1 Jul 2016 18:12:42 -0400
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

Nothing wrong with pepper spray in certain events but you don't take pepper
spray to a gun fight or a knife fight or even a baseball bat fight. If you
did you would be on the losing end of the fight for sure!
You can have lots of things in your protection tool box! Pepper spray is one
of them. But it should not be the only thing. You should have a knife ,
stun gun or Taser and a gun for sure a good old fashion hickory cane with a
good hook to it that is very pointed at the end of the hook is good or asord
cane is good. But a water gun is not much good unless you have something
besides water in it.



Matt.from.florida@...


-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On Behalf Of
Rajmund
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 4:55 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

Hi All,
Speaking of protection, I'd feel safer with a bottle of pepper spray myself,
too. I have worries about guns myself, but the good old pepper spray.

Sent from a BrailleNote

----- Original Message -----
From: "Laz" <laz@...
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Date sent: Fri, 1 Jul 2016 14:55:52 -0400
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

Gerald, I really hope you're just joking with all this drivel. I know one
of these so-called "blind extremists" who carries a gun and he carries it
for protection only. The times he has shot it in public was because he was
being threatened by four sighted extremist thugs also known as criminals,
who were threatening to not only rob him but cause him physical harm. He
took out his gun and shot once, straight up into the air. Yes, the
extremist thugs quickly ran away in fright and I hope they also needed to do
some laundry quickly afterward.
Who
knows what would have happened to my friend if he hadn't been legally
carrying his weapon. But I know I'm wasting my time with telling you that
as you're not for the individual and his rights but for some other agenda
instead. BTW there are more deaths due to automobile accidents than there
are due to shootings so this brings it back around to your glass half full
attitude aimed at self-driving cars which have caused how many deaths so
far...

Laz

On 7/1/16, Gerald Levy <bwaylimited@...> wrote:

That's a damn good question. Why, indeed, are some blind extremists allowed

to walk around with guns? Oh, excuse me, it's their constitutional right.
Never mind that they place the rest of us at risk. It's bad enough that
terrorists and sociopaths are allowed to buy and own firearms.
But blind
consumers as well? No wonder this country is a screwed up mess that has
become beholden to dangerous demagogues like Donald Trump.

Gerald



-----Original Message-----
From: Carlos
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 1:45 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

It is nonsense because it is simply not possible. And if the lawmakers were
so determined to put a halt to any technology that is not 100% safe and
foolproof, there are many types of technology we would not have access to
in modern society. If the lawmakers in Washington care so much about
keeping dangerous technology out of the hands of the blind, then why are
there several blind individuals who are still being allowed to legally own
firearms?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gerald Levy" <bwaylimited@...
To: <main@TechTalk.groups.io
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 1:38 PM
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident



You may think that making self-driving cars 100% foolproof is nonsense.
But
you can bet that the lawmakers in Washington and elsewhere won't see it that
way. They will demand that self-driving vehicles be made as close to 100%
foolproof as possible before they consider enacting legislation that would
allow blind drivers to operate them without the accompaniment of a sighted
driver. That's just the realities of politics in a predominantly sighted
world.

Gerald



-----Original Message-----
From: Carlos
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 1:11 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

Who knows when blind people will be allowed to manage these types of cars.
Will it be any time soon? Probably not, but there is a difference between
soon and never. But as far as I'm concerned, the other issue here is this
ridiculous assumption that somehow the technology should be or ever can be
made 100% safe and foolproof. That is just nonsense and trying to predict
the future of the technology based on one accident or even several is just
more nonsense.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt" <matt.from.florida@...
To: <main@TechTalk.groups.io
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 12:59 PM
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident


Well I usually don't or try not to look at things with a half empty blass
but a half full one. But in some cases this is just not possible. I have
to agree with him on this Gerald . It is also not just the US legislature
but from state to state. Just like all driving laws vary from state to
state..
It
is called states' rights and there forth each state will more than likely
implement it on law on driving driverless cars. I also think they would
require very special training even for the sited but certainly for the blind
person as well! I just don't see the blind being able to do this in my life
time and I hope to be here around another 30 years. I am coming up on my
58th birthday.


Matt.from.florida@...

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On Behalf Of
Gerald Levy
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 12:49 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident


It really doesn't matter what caused the accident. The bottom line is that
it will be a very long time, if ever, before blind consumers are allowed to
operate one of these gizmos by themselves. One fatal accident is still one
fatal accident too many. These vehicles must be made 100% safe and
foolproof before the powers that be in Washington will let blind drivers
behind the wheel without the accompaniment of a sighted driver in the
passenger's seat. Sorry to throw water on your parade.

Gerald



-----Original Message-----
From: Jeremy
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 12:26 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

Again, another reflexive post of yours. There's lots of reasons why this
could have happened. It is likely these multiple car manufacturers are
using different gPS databases and supporting software, as well as other yet
to be determined reasons, so what happened here may not happen to other
researchers who are using more developed databases--the results depend on
lots of variables. The Google car has not had this type of history, and the
single accident it had was due to a human disabling the computer and taking
over the driving.

Gerald, I don't think technology is for you, so you might consider solutions
which are less stressful to you.

JR

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On Behalf Of
Gerald Levy
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 9:18 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident


For those of you who are chomping at the bit to buy one of those newfangled
self-driving cars that may some day revolutionize the lives of us blind
consumers, not so fast. The race to develop a safe and reliable
self-driving vehicle suffered a major setback recently when a Tesla
all-electric self-driving car was involved in a fatal accident that killed
the driver while it was operating in self-driving mode. I guess it's back
to the drawing board:


http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/01/business/self-driving-tesla-fat
al-crash-investigation.html?_r=0

Gerald
































--
Affordably priced Accessible Talking MP3 Players, Accessible phones,
Bluetooth devices, and accessories http://www.talkingmp3players.com/
Email: laz@...
Phone: 727-498-0121
Skype: lazmesa
Personal Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/laz.mesa
Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/Talkingmp3players?_rdr















-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7640 / Virus Database: 4613/12537 - Release Date: 07/01/16













-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7640 / Virus Database: 4613/12544 - Release Date: 07/02/16


Re: all about guns and safety was Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

rajmund <brajmund2000@...>
 

Hello, thanks, thought that that was the case.

Sent from a BrailleNote

----- Original Message -----
From: "Carlos" <carlos1106@...
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Date sent: Sat, 2 Jul 2016 14:51:02 -0400
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

Clocks, recorders and hearing aids are all technology.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rajmund" <brajmund2000@...
To: <main@TechTalk.groups.io
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 2:46 PM
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car
Involved In Fatal Accident


Hi,
Actually, since a recorder is operated by buttons, and some sort of an
under lining file system, I consider those to be technology.

Sent from a BrailleNote

----- Original Message -----
From: "Carolyn Arnold" <4carolyna@...
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Date sent: Sat, 2 Jul 2016 14:32:59 -0400
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car
Involved In Fatal Accident

Guns are technical. All computers are technical, but not all
technical equipment is a computer. Now that is being very
objective from me, since anyone who knows me well knows my
viewpoint on guns. However, that viewpoint is not shared by
everyone, and I am not so dogmatic to say that only one idea
is correct. I just point out, that it would seem that guns,
while not computers, are technical. Clocks, recorders and
hearing aids are not, but we have discussed them at length.

Bye for now,

Carolyn


-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io
[mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On Behalf Of Jeremy
Sent: Saturday, July 2, 2016 7:52 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk]
Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

Hi Carlos,

In hopes of not stepping on toes, I think you might want to
define what is meant by technology as it relates to this
list. I don't think most would consider guns technology in
terms of the scope of blind members wanting to know about
computer sciences and general computing. As is, it appears
that just about anything can be considered technology is one
thinks about it.
Would the study of ants be considered technology if an
electronic device is used to watch them at work? Would
Woman's make-up be on topic on this list if someone twists
him or herself in pretzels to box up a question using a
technology slant? I think most list members consider
computers and all they do for us as on topic, but
seismographs and oscilloscopes might not be as relevant.
...Just looking for a bit more clarity.

JR

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io
[mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On Behalf Of Carlos
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 4:12 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk]
Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

Guns are most certainly technology and I personally don't
have a problem with the discussion, but I believe some
members might not be quite as understanding so we might want
to close this topic or move it to the chat list as was
suggested.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt" <matt.from.florida@...
To: <main@TechTalk.groups.io
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 1:42 AM
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk]
Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident


Well it not just because it a gun thread if it was about
guns and the
technology that could be implemted on them then it would
be on topic.
But just guns in general no . or if it is abut guns and
blindness it
would be on topic. As carlos is fairly flexable and most
anything
technology wise or blindness related is on topic . But I
have no
problem about moving to the chat room.


Matt.from.florida@...

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io
[mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Jeremy
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 1:31 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk]
Self-Driving Car
Involved In Fatal Accident

It might be time for the chat list as this topic has now
morphed into
some sort of gun thread.

JR

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io
[mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Matt
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 10:28 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk]
Self-Driving Car
Involved In Fatal Accident

Well this is true on single action revolvers of today and
it is still
the safety way is to let the hammer set on an empty
chamber. Now you
could do the same for a double action as well let it set
on the empty
chamber but you don't have to . As the trigger pull unless
modified is
usually a fairly heavy pull anyhow. . but the safest way
is not to put
your finger on the trigger till you are ready to pull it.
they really
have 4types of revolvers as I know. They are single shot,
single
action, double action only and DASA (Double action plus
single action)
another words you can just pull the trigger or you can
cock the hammer
and pull the trigger. Your choice. Most double action only
does not
have an external hammer.
Now I was brought up with guns and had them around me and
learn at
every early age about them and how to handle them. But you
need to get
training on handling them and using them as well as
training on the
laws and how to protect yourself with them. it is much
more than just
going out and buying gun. This is just stupid. I not a big
fan of most
regulation but some I am and some I have no problem with
them at all.
But I don't know if we are not sort of straying off topic
and off the
the subject as well so this might need to be moved to the
chat room.


Matt.from.florida@...


-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io
[mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of James Bentley
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 1:00 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal
Accident

You can't even pull the trigger on a single action
revolver unless the
hammer is cocked back in to the firing position. You
never cock the
gun unless you intend to discharge it.

Most double action revolvers do not have a safety because
the gun still
needs to be cocked before it can be fired. Or, the
necessary trigger
travel to discharge the gun is so great that it would be
almost
impossible to accidentily pull the trigger far enough to
shoot the gun.

James



-----Original Message-----
From: Matt
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 11:33 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal
Accident

You can on most all pistols you cannot on revolvers the
safety is not
to pull the trigger.


Matt.from.florida@...

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io
[mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Pamela Dominguez
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 10:26 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal
Accident

I think you can lock the trigger. Pam.

-----Original Message-----
From: Rajmund
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 6:19 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal
Accident

My problem with a gun would be, what if I accidently
trigger it in my
pocket? Or sit on it, or whatever?
Knife, cane, spray, they're all good, but I'd be worried
with a gun.
Sent from a BrailleNote

----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt" <matt.from.florida@...
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Date sent: Fri, 1 Jul 2016 18:12:42 -0400
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal
Accident

Nothing wrong with pepper spray in certain events but you
don't take
pepper spray to a gun fight or a knife fight or even a
baseball bat
fight. If you did you would be on the losing end of the
fight for
sure!
You can have lots of things in your protection tool box!
Pepper spray
is one of them. But it should not be the only thing. You
should have
a knife , stun gun or Taser and a gun for sure a good old
fashion
hickory cane with a good hook to it that is very pointed
at the end of
the hook is good or asord cane is good. But a water gun
is not much
good unless you have something besides water in it.



Matt.from.florida@...


-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io
[mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Rajmund
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 4:55 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal
Accident

Hi All,
Speaking of protection, I'd feel safer with a bottle of
pepper spray
myself, too. I have worries about guns myself, but the
good old
pepper spray.

Sent from a BrailleNote

----- Original Message -----
From: "Laz" <laz@...
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Date sent: Fri, 1 Jul 2016 14:55:52 -0400
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal
Accident

Gerald, I really hope you're just joking with all this
drivel. I know
one of these so-called "blind extremists" who carries a
gun and he
carries it for protection only. The times he has shot it
in public
was because he was being threatened by four sighted
extremist thugs
also known as criminals, who were threatening to not only
rob him but
cause him physical harm. He took out his gun and shot
once, straight
up into the air. Yes, the extremist thugs quickly ran
away in fright
and I hope they also needed to do some laundry quickly
afterward.
Who
knows what would have happened to my friend if he hadn't
been legally
carrying his weapon. But I know I'm wasting my time with
telling you
that as you're not for the individual and his rights but
for some
other agenda instead. BTW there are more deaths due to
automobile
accidents than there are due to shootings so this brings
it back
around to your glass half full attitude aimed at
self-driving cars
which have caused how many deaths so far...

Laz

On 7/1/16, Gerald Levy <bwaylimited@...> wrote:

That's a damn good question. Why, indeed, are some blind
extremists
allowed

to walk around with guns? Oh, excuse me, it's their
constitutional right.
Never mind that they place the rest of us at risk. It's
bad enough
that terrorists and sociopaths are allowed to buy and own
firearms.
But blind
consumers as well? No wonder this country is a screwed up
mess that
has become beholden to dangerous demagogues like Donald
Trump.

Gerald



-----Original Message-----
From: Carlos
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 1:45 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal
Accident

It is nonsense because it is simply not possible. And if
the
lawmakers were so determined to put a halt to any
technology that is
not 100% safe and foolproof, there are many types of
technology we
would not have access to in modern society. If the
lawmakers in
Washington care so much about keeping dangerous technology
out of the
hands of the blind, then why are there several blind
individuals who
are still being allowed to legally own firearms?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gerald Levy" <bwaylimited@...
To: <main@TechTalk.groups.io
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 1:38 PM
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal
Accident



You may think that making self-driving cars 100% foolproof
is nonsense.
But
you can bet that the lawmakers in Washington and elsewhere
won't see
it that way. They will demand that self-driving vehicles
be made as
close to 100% foolproof as possible before they consider
enacting
legislation that would allow blind drivers to operate them
without the
accompaniment of a sighted driver. That's just the
realities of
politics in a predominantly sighted world.

Gerald



-----Original Message-----
From: Carlos
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 1:11 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal
Accident

Who knows when blind people will be allowed to manage
these types of cars.
Will it be any time soon? Probably not, but there is a
difference
between soon and never. But as far as I'm concerned, the
other issue
here is this ridiculous assumption that somehow the
technology should
be or ever can be made 100% safe and foolproof. That is
just nonsense
and trying to predict the future of the technology based
on one
accident or even several is just more nonsense.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt" <matt.from.florida@...
To: <main@TechTalk.groups.io
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 12:59 PM
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal
Accident


Well I usually don't or try not to look at things with a
half empty
blass but a half full one. But in some cases this is just
not
possible. I have to agree with him on this Gerald . It
is also not
just the US legislature but from state to state. Just
like all
driving laws vary from state to state..
It
is called states' rights and there forth each state will
more than
likely implement it on law on driving driverless cars. I
also think
they would require very special training even for the
sited but
certainly for the blind person as well! I just don't see
the blind
being able to do this in my life time and I hope to be
here around
another 30 years. I am coming up on my 58th birthday.


Matt.from.florida@...

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io
[mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Gerald Levy
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 12:49 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal
Accident


It really doesn't matter what caused the accident. The
bottom line is
that it will be a very long time, if ever, before blind
consumers are
allowed to operate one of these gizmos by themselves. One
fatal
accident is still one fatal accident too many. These
vehicles must be
made 100% safe and foolproof before the powers that be in
Washington
will let blind drivers behind the wheel without the
accompaniment of a
sighted driver in the passenger's seat. Sorry to throw
water on your
parade.

Gerald



-----Original Message-----
From: Jeremy
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 12:26 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal
Accident

Again, another reflexive post of yours. There's lots of
reasons why
this could have happened. It is likely these multiple car

manufacturers are using different gPS databases and
supporting
software, as well as other yet to be determined reasons,
so what
happened here may not happen to other researchers who are
using more
developed databases--the results depend on lots of
variables. The
Google car has not had this type of history, and the
single accident
it had was due to a human disabling the computer and
taking over the
driving.

Gerald, I don't think technology is for you, so you might
consider
solutions which are less stressful to you.

JR

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io
[mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Gerald Levy
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 9:18 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal
Accident


For those of you who are chomping at the bit to buy one of
those
newfangled
self-driving cars that may some day revolutionize the
lives of us blind
consumers, not so fast. The race to develop a safe and
reliable
self-driving vehicle suffered a major setback recently
when a Tesla
all-electric self-driving car was involved in a fatal
accident that killed
the driver while it was operating in self-driving mode. I
guess it's back
to the drawing board:



http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/01/business/self-driving-tesl
a-fat
al-crash-investigation.html?_r=0

Gerald
































--
Affordably priced Accessible Talking MP3 Players,
Accessible phones,
Bluetooth devices, and accessories
http://www.talkingmp3players.com/
Email: laz@...
Phone: 727-498-0121
Skype: lazmesa
Personal Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/laz.mesa
Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/Talkingmp3players?_rdr















-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7640 / Virus Database: 4613/12537 -
Release Date: 07/01/16


Re: Making progress on accessibility with the Windows 10 Anniversary Update | Microsoft Accessibility Blog #article

Carlos
 

I didn't say that other screen readers would just disappear, but I believe that third-party developers might have less incentive to invest much time and effort in serious development if a full-blown screen reader were built-in. The screen reader market already has a limited margin for profit and Microsoft would always have the edge in terms of adding new features if they became seriously invested in Narrator. Consumers might also have less incentive to purchase third-party screen readers if most of the functionality they need were already included in Windows. Windows is not Android. The alternatives are either very expensive or free in the case of NVDA. In the case of more expensive screen readers, consumers would almost always choose the fully functional option that is built-in and does not cost nearly $1000. Organizations which provide sponsorship for obtaining computers would also have less reason to purchase screen readers like JAWS. Of course some people might think this is a good thing, but if sales of JAWS were to drop significantly, eventually it might make continuing to produce the product unviable which in turn means fewer options. It is hard to say whether NVDA would be affected, but the development of NVDA is supported partially by donations and partially by the motivation of the developers, either of which could potentially be affected by the inclusion of a full-blown screen reader in Windows.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Rajmund" <brajmund2000@...>
To: <main@TechTalk.groups.io>
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 2:25 PM
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Making progress on accessibility with the Windows 10 Anniversary Update | Microsoft Accessibility Blog


Hi Carlos,
I deleted your original post, but, know how you're saying Mac? To
my knowledge, talkBack is built into android, yet, there's
another one called ShinePlus. I wonder, if, say, MS made a fully
built in screen reader, as long as windows was opened, I can't
see why something like would NVDA died. Apple is different, as
their system is not opened.

Sent from a BrailleNote

----- Original Message -----
From: "RJ Sandefur" <manbatsandefur@...
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Date sent: Sat, 2 Jul 2016 18:11:19 +0000
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Making progress on accessibility with the
Windows 10 Anniversary Update | Microsoft Accessibility Blog

No it wouldn't. RJ


On 7/2/2016 1:53 PM, Carlos wrote:
Whether Narrator becomes a full-blown screen reader some day, it
has a
long
way to go. And in my opinion, making Narrator a full-blown
screen reader
would only stifle development for the competition. It is good
to have
options and Macs are a good example of what happens when a
full-blown
screen
reader is built-in to the operating system.
----- Original Message -----
From: "RJ Sandefur" <manbatsandefur@...
To: <main@TechTalk.groups.io
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 1:41 PM
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Making progress on accessibility with
the
Windows 10
Anniversary Update | Microsoft Accessibility Blog


I am not usually one to use this type of strong language, but
really?
How do you think NVDA and Jaws got to where they are? Feedback!
Let's
all give narrator a chance. Microsoft alone won't make the
screenreader,
but together, the end users,(Us the blind community) will make
Narrator
a screenreader which could even beat out voice over if we really
wanted
it bad enough. RJ


On 7/2/2016 1:19 PM, Marie wrote:
I find Narrator useful on occasion, but it is far from being a
full
screen reader and I would hate it if they made it like the Apple
devices where it is your only choice.
Marie


-----Original Message----- From: Carlos
Sent: Saturday, July 2, 2016 5:33 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Making progress on accessibility with
the
Windows 10 Anniversary Update | Microsoft Accessibility Blog

If they are going somewhere with Narrator, then they should
simply
release a
major upgrade when it is ready to be used as a full-blown screen
reader. At
this point it is wasted effort to introduce these minor changes
since
it is
still not functional enough to be used by most on a daily basis.
Gradually
introducing features that most people probably won't use because
there
is a
better free alternative seems like effort that could be more
productively
invested somewhere else for now.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeremy" <jeremy.richards7@...
To: <main@TechTalk.groups.io
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 8:00 AM
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Making progress on accessibility with
the
Windows 10
Anniversary Update | Microsoft Accessibility Blog


Yeah, but they might be going somewhere with it which we don't
know
about
just yet. Some of the features discussed in the article seem as
though
they
may have been influenced by general screen reader tech.

They might first want to start with the Windows OS then
ultimately
create a
VoiceOver competitor for future Windows devices.

With technology advancing as it does, why not accept the help
from
one of
the biggest computer software developers in the world?
Furthermore,
this
development might yield discoveries which will help with other
related
disabilities experienced by an aging population.

JR

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io]
On
Behalf Of
Carlos
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 4:03 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Making progress on accessibility with
the
Windows 10
Anniversary Update | Microsoft Accessibility Blog

And honestly, the focus on Narrator seems like wasted time and
somewhat
excessive in my opinion. How many people really use Narrator on
a
daily
basis? The fact is that most users only run Narrator in an
emergency
or to
finish setting up Windows. It is useful and convenient to have,
but
for
most it does not provide enough functionality to be used as a
primary
screen
reader. These days those who cannot afford one of the expensive
screen
readers will most likely use NVDA. And Narrator has a long way
to go
before
it can compete with NVDA. That being the case, I believe their
time
and
effort would be better spent on improving accessibility in other
areas. If
NVDA did not exist, then the efforts to improve Narrator might
seem
more
significant, but again in my opinion at this time, it just seems
like
wasted
effort.

----- Original Message -----
From: Gene <mailto:gsasner@...
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 6:23 AM
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Making progress on accessibility with
the
Windows 10
Anniversary Update | Microsoft Accessibility Blog

I have defended Microsoft for years when I thought they deserved
it.
I will
not defend them in their accessibility implementation of
accessibility in
Windows 10. My thoughts on the blog entry are below


Re: all about guns and safety was Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

Carlos
 

Neither of those two criteria define why a recorder is considered technology. Any artifact which is a product of science or acquired knowledge is technology.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Rajmund" <brajmund2000@...>
To: <main@TechTalk.groups.io>
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 2:46 PM
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident


Hi,
Actually, since a recorder is operated by buttons, and some sort of an under lining file system, I consider those to be technology.

Sent from a BrailleNote

----- Original Message -----
From: "Carolyn Arnold" <4carolyna@...
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Date sent: Sat, 2 Jul 2016 14:32:59 -0400
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

Guns are technical. All computers are technical, but not all
technical equipment is a computer. Now that is being very
objective from me, since anyone who knows me well knows my
viewpoint on guns. However, that viewpoint is not shared by
everyone, and I am not so dogmatic to say that only one idea
is correct. I just point out, that it would seem that guns,
while not computers, are technical. Clocks, recorders and
hearing aids are not, but we have discussed them at length.

Bye for now,

Carolyn


-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io
[mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On Behalf Of Jeremy
Sent: Saturday, July 2, 2016 7:52 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk]
Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

Hi Carlos,

In hopes of not stepping on toes, I think you might want to
define what is meant by technology as it relates to this
list. I don't think most would consider guns technology in
terms of the scope of blind members wanting to know about
computer sciences and general computing. As is, it appears
that just about anything can be considered technology is one
thinks about it.
Would the study of ants be considered technology if an
electronic device is used to watch them at work? Would
Woman's make-up be on topic on this list if someone twists
him or herself in pretzels to box up a question using a
technology slant? I think most list members consider
computers and all they do for us as on topic, but
seismographs and oscilloscopes might not be as relevant.
...Just looking for a bit more clarity.

JR

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io
[mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On Behalf Of Carlos
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 4:12 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk]
Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

Guns are most certainly technology and I personally don't
have a problem with the discussion, but I believe some
members might not be quite as understanding so we might want
to close this topic or move it to the chat list as was
suggested.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt" <matt.from.florida@...
To: <main@TechTalk.groups.io
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 1:42 AM
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk]
Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident


Well it not just because it a gun thread if it was about
guns and the
technology that could be implemted on them then it would
be on topic.
But just guns in general no . or if it is abut guns and
blindness it
would be on topic. As carlos is fairly flexable and most
anything
technology wise or blindness related is on topic . But I
have no
problem about moving to the chat room.


Matt.from.florida@...

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io
[mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Jeremy
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 1:31 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk]
Self-Driving Car
Involved In Fatal Accident

It might be time for the chat list as this topic has now
morphed into
some sort of gun thread.

JR

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io
[mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Matt
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 10:28 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk]
Self-Driving Car
Involved In Fatal Accident

Well this is true on single action revolvers of today and
it is still
the safety way is to let the hammer set on an empty
chamber. Now you
could do the same for a double action as well let it set
on the empty
chamber but you don't have to . As the trigger pull unless
modified is
usually a fairly heavy pull anyhow. . but the safest way
is not to put
your finger on the trigger till you are ready to pull it.
they really
have 4types of revolvers as I know. They are single shot,
single
action, double action only and DASA (Double action plus
single action)
another words you can just pull the trigger or you can
cock the hammer
and pull the trigger. Your choice. Most double action only
does not
have an external hammer.
Now I was brought up with guns and had them around me and
learn at
every early age about them and how to handle them. But you
need to get
training on handling them and using them as well as
training on the
laws and how to protect yourself with them. it is much
more than just
going out and buying gun. This is just stupid. I not a big
fan of most
regulation but some I am and some I have no problem with
them at all.
But I don't know if we are not sort of straying off topic
and off the
the subject as well so this might need to be moved to the
chat room.


Matt.from.florida@...


-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io
[mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of James Bentley
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 1:00 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal
Accident

You can't even pull the trigger on a single action
revolver unless the
hammer is cocked back in to the firing position. You
never cock the
gun unless you intend to discharge it.

Most double action revolvers do not have a safety because
the gun still
needs to be cocked before it can be fired. Or, the
necessary trigger
travel to discharge the gun is so great that it would be
almost
impossible to accidentily pull the trigger far enough to
shoot the gun.

James



-----Original Message-----
From: Matt
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 11:33 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal
Accident

You can on most all pistols you cannot on revolvers the
safety is not
to pull the trigger.


Matt.from.florida@...

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io
[mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Pamela Dominguez
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 10:26 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal
Accident

I think you can lock the trigger. Pam.

-----Original Message-----
From: Rajmund
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 6:19 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal
Accident

My problem with a gun would be, what if I accidently
trigger it in my
pocket? Or sit on it, or whatever?
Knife, cane, spray, they're all good, but I'd be worried
with a gun.
Sent from a BrailleNote

----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt" <matt.from.florida@...
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Date sent: Fri, 1 Jul 2016 18:12:42 -0400
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal
Accident

Nothing wrong with pepper spray in certain events but you
don't take
pepper spray to a gun fight or a knife fight or even a
baseball bat
fight. If you did you would be on the losing end of the
fight for
sure!
You can have lots of things in your protection tool box!
Pepper spray
is one of them. But it should not be the only thing. You
should have
a knife , stun gun or Taser and a gun for sure a good old
fashion
hickory cane with a good hook to it that is very pointed
at the end of
the hook is good or asord cane is good. But a water gun
is not much
good unless you have something besides water in it.



Matt.from.florida@...


-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io
[mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Rajmund
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 4:55 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal
Accident

Hi All,
Speaking of protection, I'd feel safer with a bottle of
pepper spray
myself, too. I have worries about guns myself, but the
good old
pepper spray.

Sent from a BrailleNote

----- Original Message -----
From: "Laz" <laz@...
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Date sent: Fri, 1 Jul 2016 14:55:52 -0400
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal
Accident

Gerald, I really hope you're just joking with all this
drivel. I know
one of these so-called "blind extremists" who carries a
gun and he
carries it for protection only. The times he has shot it
in public
was because he was being threatened by four sighted
extremist thugs
also known as criminals, who were threatening to not only
rob him but
cause him physical harm. He took out his gun and shot
once, straight
up into the air. Yes, the extremist thugs quickly ran
away in fright
and I hope they also needed to do some laundry quickly
afterward.
Who
knows what would have happened to my friend if he hadn't
been legally
carrying his weapon. But I know I'm wasting my time with
telling you
that as you're not for the individual and his rights but
for some
other agenda instead. BTW there are more deaths due to
automobile
accidents than there are due to shootings so this brings
it back
around to your glass half full attitude aimed at
self-driving cars
which have caused how many deaths so far...

Laz

On 7/1/16, Gerald Levy <bwaylimited@...> wrote:

That's a damn good question. Why, indeed, are some blind
extremists
allowed

to walk around with guns? Oh, excuse me, it's their
constitutional right.
Never mind that they place the rest of us at risk. It's
bad enough
that terrorists and sociopaths are allowed to buy and own
firearms.
But blind
consumers as well? No wonder this country is a screwed up
mess that
has become beholden to dangerous demagogues like Donald
Trump.

Gerald



-----Original Message-----
From: Carlos
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 1:45 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal
Accident

It is nonsense because it is simply not possible. And if
the
lawmakers were so determined to put a halt to any
technology that is
not 100% safe and foolproof, there are many types of
technology we
would not have access to in modern society. If the
lawmakers in
Washington care so much about keeping dangerous technology
out of the
hands of the blind, then why are there several blind
individuals who
are still being allowed to legally own firearms?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gerald Levy" <bwaylimited@...
To: <main@TechTalk.groups.io
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 1:38 PM
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal
Accident



You may think that making self-driving cars 100% foolproof
is nonsense.
But
you can bet that the lawmakers in Washington and elsewhere
won't see
it that way. They will demand that self-driving vehicles
be made as
close to 100% foolproof as possible before they consider
enacting
legislation that would allow blind drivers to operate them
without the
accompaniment of a sighted driver. That's just the
realities of
politics in a predominantly sighted world.

Gerald



-----Original Message-----
From: Carlos
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 1:11 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal
Accident

Who knows when blind people will be allowed to manage
these types of cars.
Will it be any time soon? Probably not, but there is a
difference
between soon and never. But as far as I'm concerned, the
other issue
here is this ridiculous assumption that somehow the
technology should
be or ever can be made 100% safe and foolproof. That is
just nonsense
and trying to predict the future of the technology based
on one
accident or even several is just more nonsense.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt" <matt.from.florida@...
To: <main@TechTalk.groups.io
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 12:59 PM
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal
Accident


Well I usually don't or try not to look at things with a
half empty
blass but a half full one. But in some cases this is just
not
possible. I have to agree with him on this Gerald . It
is also not
just the US legislature but from state to state. Just
like all
driving laws vary from state to state..
It
is called states' rights and there forth each state will
more than
likely implement it on law on driving driverless cars. I
also think
they would require very special training even for the
sited but
certainly for the blind person as well! I just don't see
the blind
being able to do this in my life time and I hope to be
here around
another 30 years. I am coming up on my 58th birthday.


Matt.from.florida@...

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io
[mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Gerald Levy
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 12:49 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal
Accident


It really doesn't matter what caused the accident. The
bottom line is
that it will be a very long time, if ever, before blind
consumers are
allowed to operate one of these gizmos by themselves. One
fatal
accident is still one fatal accident too many. These
vehicles must be
made 100% safe and foolproof before the powers that be in
Washington
will let blind drivers behind the wheel without the
accompaniment of a
sighted driver in the passenger's seat. Sorry to throw
water on your
parade.

Gerald



-----Original Message-----
From: Jeremy
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 12:26 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal
Accident

Again, another reflexive post of yours. There's lots of
reasons why
this could have happened. It is likely these multiple car

manufacturers are using different gPS databases and
supporting
software, as well as other yet to be determined reasons,
so what
happened here may not happen to other researchers who are
using more
developed databases--the results depend on lots of
variables. The
Google car has not had this type of history, and the
single accident
it had was due to a human disabling the computer and
taking over the
driving.

Gerald, I don't think technology is for you, so you might
consider
solutions which are less stressful to you.

JR

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io
[mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Gerald Levy
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 9:18 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal
Accident


For those of you who are chomping at the bit to buy one of
those
newfangled
self-driving cars that may some day revolutionize the
lives of us blind
consumers, not so fast. The race to develop a safe and
reliable
self-driving vehicle suffered a major setback recently
when a Tesla
all-electric self-driving car was involved in a fatal
accident that killed
the driver while it was operating in self-driving mode. I
guess it's back
to the drawing board:



http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/01/business/self-driving-tesl
a-fat
al-crash-investigation.html?_r=0

Gerald
































--
Affordably priced Accessible Talking MP3 Players,
Accessible phones,
Bluetooth devices, and accessories
http://www.talkingmp3players.com/
Email: laz@...
Phone: 727-498-0121
Skype: lazmesa
Personal Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/laz.mesa
Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/Talkingmp3players?_rdr















-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7640 / Virus Database: 4613/12537 -
Release Date: 07/01/16




































Re: Gun Technique, Hunting and Technology

James Bentley
 

I also totally agree.  Carlos, please keep every thing just like it is.
 
 
 

From: Matt
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 1:15 PM
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Gun Technique, Hunting and Technology
 
Totally agree !


 
 
Matt.from.florida@...
Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 2, 2016, at 1:44 PM, Carlos <carlos1106@...> wrote:

I honestly can't understand why some people have such a narrow definition of the word technology.  The word technology is not a synonym for computer.  While I can understand that is usually the primary interest of discussion on such lists, I figured there were enough lists which exclusively discuss computer technology that trying to keep this list a bit more flexible wouldn't be considered unreasonable.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 1:08 PM
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Gun Technique, Hunting and Technology
 

Hi there Folks!

Wonder what this topic has to do with technology and accessibility? To my knowledge they do not make a gun with any sort of blindness technology-or do they..? I really do wish we could get this list back on topic and leave the gun talk to the chat list.  Personally I am 60 years old and have never owned a gun-and probably never will.  If I were to own a gun it would be somethihng like a shotgun so that if I actually had to shoot at someone in self defense, I might have a chance of hitting them.  We really don't need a bunch of Barney Fifes shooting themselves in the foot<SMILE!>.          I know there are folks out there who use guns responsibly and that is most of them.

  But I wonder just how many gun owners are blind or legally blind? Anyone no any stats on that?  Have A Good 1! de
<KF8LT><Jim Wohlgamuth>.
On 02-Jul-16 12:32, James Bentley wrote:
What's insane is that the general public can purchase a version of this sniper rifle that hits a very small target at over half a mile.

Yikes,  I think I will just stay in the house with the blinds drrawn.



-----Original Message----- From: Jeremy
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 11:17 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Gun Technique, Hunting and Technology

Wow! that is freakin insane!

JR

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On Behalf Of
James Bentley
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 9:07 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Gun Technique, Hunting and Technology

The United States military has a computerized rifle and scope combination.
It first takes a photo of the entire target area.  Next, the shooter uses a
cursor on a touch screen to tell the computer where to put the bullet.
Next, the shooter aims at the target.  The computer fires the rifle only
when it sees that the rifle is aimed with pin point accuracy.  3 inch
Targets can be hit accurately at distances over two miles.



-----Original Message-----
From: Jeremy
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 10:56 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Gun Technique, Hunting and Technology

Finally, a relevant informative post. Thank you for contributing to my small
pool of knowledge. :)

And while on the subject matter, I'm thinking an audio beep of some sort
might be able to alert the blind shooter than the object of interest is
within the cross hairs of scope. Key will be determining what is target
object and what is some sort of artifact.

JR

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On Behalf Of
Joe
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 8:47 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: [TechTalk] Gun Technique, Hunting and Technology

There is now what some are calling a smart rifle, out of Texas. At $25,000,
it's beyond the reach of most enthusiasts, but it can fetch that price for
the level of precision it can automatically adjust to help the shooter
acquire a target. If technology has leaped that far, one can almost wonder
what credit, if any, the shooter gets, but my question is this: What
technology have the hunters among us used to rely a little less on sighted
assistance? I go deer hunting, but thus far I have leaned heavily on
discrete cues from sighted companions to know where and when to fire. It's
not a bad method. I've brought down three bucks in this fashion, and while
hunting can often be enjoyed with companions, it would be nice to
independently, but responsibly, engage and execute the target myself. Right
now I use a laser to help my sighted companions get a better sense of where
I am aiming. This allows me to hold and operate the rifle on my own, but
again, it feels inefficient. Any tips would be welcomed.

I'll note that while I am a member of a local shooting range, I have
hesitated to obtain a gun permit. I understand my shooting would be optimal
at very close range, but the risk of hitting someone innocent, however
small, still weighs on my conscience.

I realize for some the discussion of guns and hunting could be abhorrent. If
so, feel free to email me off list. For whatever it's worth, I eat what I
kill. I've never gone hunting for the mere sport. I've learned how to skin
my own kill, and I suppose one could argue the knife skill in doing so could
itself be viewed as a form of technology skill.

Not to stray too far off topic here, but any number of disasters could occur
in our lifetime and in our own backyard. In a scenario with no power and
extensive food shortage, that Windows machine isn't going to be worth a
whole lot except for maybe scrap metal. Our definition of "technology" just
might revert to what technology used to be. That is, the means to survive.

Best,

Joe

--
Musings of a Work in Progress:
www.JoeOrozco.com/

Twitter: @ScribblingJoe





















Re: all about guns and safety was Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

Carolyn Arnold
 

Not a gun enthusiast, but a gun has moving parts and is a
piece of equipment. It has maintenance requirements and
certainly safety requirements. Nevertheless, it is a piece
of equipment with moving parts.

Bye for now,

Carolyn

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io
[mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On Behalf Of Jeremy
Sent: Saturday, July 2, 2016 10:57 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk]
Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

I'm actually making a friendly request for the gun
enthusists on the list to help me understand what facet of
guns is technology related? This is a friendly request
though it may come off as a challenge. Again, I think I
might learn something I had not considered in the past.

JR

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io
[mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On Behalf Of Carlos
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 7:36 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk]
Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

Are guns not technology? As you say, just about anything
can be considered technology. Anything manufactured for use
as a tool qualifies as technology and while I agree that
there should be a reasonable common sense line in defining
how it relates to the list, it certainly doesn't only apply
to computers and electronics even taking that into account.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeremy" <jeremy.richards7@...>
To: <main@TechTalk.groups.io>
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 10:21 AM
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk]
Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident


Ok, but just so I learn something, what makes the gun
topic tech related?

JR

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io
[mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Joe
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 7:17 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk]
Self-Driving Car
Involved In Fatal Accident

Hell, can we keep the gun talk on this list for now? One
less list to
subscribe to, and I think Carlos has the right of it in
considering
guns as technology. Just my two cents.

Joe

--
Musings of a Work in Progress:
www.JoeOrozco.com/

Twitter: @ScribblingJoe

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io
[mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Carlos
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 8:26 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk]
Self-Driving Car
Involved In Fatal Accident

Generally electronic and accessible technology is what
most members
are interested in discussing, but I don't object to other
types of
technology being discussed within reason. It is a general
technology
discussion list, not exclusively for discussing computer
related
technology. However, I expect people to use a bit of
common sense.
Science provides technology, but it is not technology. We
will handle
unusual topics on an individual basis, but basically as
long as it
does not strain the credulity and patience of most
members, I am
willing to be flexible and open minded. Of course, if a
slightly
offbeat topic seems to be dragging on for too long or
irritating too
many members, I may request that we move on at some point.
Also, while the majority of members are blind and I will
not go out of
my way to promote the list in the sighted community, I
have no
objections to sighted individuals who might wish to
subscribe and
participate.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeremy" <jeremy.richards7@...>
To: <main@TechTalk.groups.io>
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 7:51 AM
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk]
Self-Driving Car
Involved In Fatal Accident


Hi Carlos,

In hopes of not stepping on toes, I think you might want
to define
what is meant by technology as it relates to this list. I
don't think
most would consider guns technology in terms of the scope
of blind
members wanting to know about computer sciences and
general computing.
As is, it appears that just about anything can be
considered
technology is
one thinks about it.
Would the study of ants be considered technology if an
electronic
device is used to watch them at work? Would Woman's
make-up be on
topic on this list if someone twists him or herself in
pretzels to
box up a question using a technology slant? I think most
list members
consider computers and all they do for us as on topic,
but
seismographs and oscilloscopes might not be as relevant.
...Just
looking for a bit more clarity.

JR

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io
[mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Carlos
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 4:12 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk]
Self-Driving
Car Involved In Fatal Accident

Guns are most certainly technology and I personally don't
have a
problem with the discussion, but I believe some members
might not be
quite as understanding so we might want to close this
topic or move
it to the chat list as was suggested.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt" <matt.from.florida@...>
To: <main@TechTalk.groups.io>
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 1:42 AM
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk]
Self-Driving
Car Involved In Fatal Accident


Well it not just because it a gun thread if it was about
guns and
the technology that could be implemted on them then it
would be on
topic.
But just guns in general no . or if it is abut guns and
blindness it
would be on topic. As carlos is fairly flexable and
most anything
technology wise or blindness related is on topic . But I
have no
problem about moving to the chat room.


Matt.from.florida@...

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io
[mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Jeremy
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 1:31 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk]
Self-Driving
Car Involved In Fatal Accident

It might be time for the chat list as this topic has now
morphed
into some sort of gun thread.

JR

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io
[mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Matt
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 10:28 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk]
Self-Driving
Car Involved In Fatal Accident

Well this is true on single action revolvers of today
and it is
still the safety way is to let the hammer set on an
empty chamber.
Now you could do the same for a double action as well
let it set on
the empty chamber but you don't have to . As the trigger
pull unless
modified is usually a fairly heavy pull anyhow. . but
the safest way
is not to put your finger on the trigger till you are
ready to pull
it. they really have 4types of revolvers as I know. They
are single
shot, single action, double action only and DASA (Double
action plus
single
action) another words you can just pull the trigger or
you can cock
the hammer and pull the trigger. Your choice. Most
double action
only does not have an external hammer.
Now I was brought up with guns and had them around me
and learn at
every early age about them and how to handle them. But
you need to
get training on handling them and using them as well as
training on
the laws and how to protect yourself with them. it is
much more than
just going out and buying gun. This is just stupid. I
not a big fan
of most regulation but some I am and some I have no
problem with
them at
all.
But I don't know if we are not sort of straying off
topic and off
the the subject as well so this might need to be moved
to the chat room.


Matt.from.florida@...


-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io
[mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of James Bentley
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 1:00 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In
Fatal Accident

You can't even pull the trigger on a single action
revolver unless
the hammer is cocked back in to the firing position.
You never cock
the gun unless you intend to discharge it.

Most double action revolvers do not have a safety
because the gun still
needs to be cocked before it can be fired. Or, the
necessary trigger
travel to discharge the gun is so great that it would be
almost
impossible to accidentily pull the trigger far enough to
shoot the gun.

James



-----Original Message-----
From: Matt
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 11:33 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In
Fatal Accident

You can on most all pistols you cannot on revolvers the
safety is
not to pull the trigger.


Matt.from.florida@...

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io
[mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Pamela Dominguez
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 10:26 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In
Fatal Accident

I think you can lock the trigger. Pam.

-----Original Message-----
From: Rajmund
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 6:19 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In
Fatal Accident

My problem with a gun would be, what if I accidently
trigger it in
my pocket? Or sit on it, or whatever?
Knife, cane, spray, they're all good, but I'd be worried
with a gun.
Sent from a BrailleNote

----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt" <matt.from.florida@...
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Date sent: Fri, 1 Jul 2016 18:12:42 -0400
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In
Fatal Accident

Nothing wrong with pepper spray in certain events but
you don't take
pepper spray to a gun fight or a knife fight or even a
baseball bat
fight. If you did you would be on the losing end of the
fight for
sure!
You can have lots of things in your protection tool box!
Pepper
spray is one of them. But it should not be the only
thing. You
should have a knife , stun gun or Taser and a gun for
sure a good
old fashion hickory cane with a good hook to it that is
very pointed
at the end of the hook is good or asord cane is good.
But a water
gun is not much good unless you have something besides
water in it.



Matt.from.florida@...


-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io
[mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Rajmund
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 4:55 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In
Fatal Accident

Hi All,
Speaking of protection, I'd feel safer with a bottle of
pepper spray
myself, too. I have worries about guns myself, but the
good old
pepper spray.

Sent from a BrailleNote

----- Original Message -----
From: "Laz" <laz@...
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Date sent: Fri, 1 Jul 2016 14:55:52 -0400
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In
Fatal Accident

Gerald, I really hope you're just joking with all this
drivel. I
know one of these so-called "blind extremists" who
carries a gun and
he carries it for protection only. The times he has
shot it in
public was because he was being threatened by four
sighted extremist
thugs also known as criminals, who were threatening to
not only rob
him but cause him physical harm. He took out his gun
and shot
once, straight up into the air. Yes, the extremist
thugs quickly
ran away in fright and I hope they also needed to do
some laundry
quickly
afterward.
Who
knows what would have happened to my friend if he hadn't
been
legally carrying his weapon. But I know I'm wasting my
time with
telling you that as you're not for the individual and
his rights but
for some other agenda instead. BTW there are more
deaths due to
automobile accidents than there are due to shootings so
this brings
it back around to your glass half full attitude aimed at
self-driving cars which have caused how many deaths so
far...

Laz

On 7/1/16, Gerald Levy <bwaylimited@...> wrote:

That's a damn good question. Why, indeed, are some
blind extremists
allowed

to walk around with guns? Oh, excuse me, it's their
constitutional
right.
Never mind that they place the rest of us at risk. It's
bad enough
that terrorists and sociopaths are allowed to buy and
own firearms.
But blind
consumers as well? No wonder this country is a screwed
up mess that
has become beholden to dangerous demagogues like Donald
Trump.

Gerald



-----Original Message-----
From: Carlos
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 1:45 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In
Fatal Accident

It is nonsense because it is simply not possible. And
if the
lawmakers were so determined to put a halt to any
technology that is
not 100% safe and foolproof, there are many types of
technology we
would not have access to in modern society. If the
lawmakers in
Washington care so much about keeping dangerous
technology out of
the hands of the blind, then why are there several blind
individuals
who are still being allowed to legally own firearms?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gerald Levy" <bwaylimited@...
To: <main@TechTalk.groups.io
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 1:38 PM
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In
Fatal Accident



You may think that making self-driving cars 100%
foolproof is nonsense.
But
you can bet that the lawmakers in Washington and
elsewhere won't see
it that way. They will demand that self-driving
vehicles be made as
close to 100% foolproof as possible before they consider
enacting
legislation that would allow blind drivers to operate
them without
the accompaniment of a sighted driver. That's just the
realities of
politics in a predominantly sighted world.

Gerald



-----Original Message-----
From: Carlos
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 1:11 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In
Fatal Accident

Who knows when blind people will be allowed to manage
these types of
cars.
Will it be any time soon? Probably not, but there is a
difference
between soon and never. But as far as I'm concerned,
the other
issue here is this ridiculous assumption that somehow
the technology
should be or ever can be made 100% safe and foolproof.
That is just
nonsense and trying to predict the future of the
technology based on
one accident or even several is just more nonsense.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt" <matt.from.florida@...
To: <main@TechTalk.groups.io
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 12:59 PM
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In
Fatal Accident


Well I usually don't or try not to look at things with a
half empty
blass but a half full one. But in some cases this is
just not
possible. I have to agree with him on this Gerald .
It is also
not just the US legislature but from state to state.
Just like all
driving laws vary from state to state..
It
is called states' rights and there forth each state will
more than
likely implement it on law on driving driverless cars.
I also think
they would require very special training even for the
sited but
certainly for the blind person as well! I just don't see
the blind
being able to do this in my life time and I hope to be
here around
another 30 years. I am coming up on my 58th birthday.


Matt.from.florida@...

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io
[mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Gerald Levy
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 12:49 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In
Fatal Accident


It really doesn't matter what caused the accident. The
bottom line
is that it will be a very long time, if ever, before
blind consumers
are allowed to operate one of these gizmos by
themselves. One fatal
accident is still one fatal accident too many. These
vehicles must
be made 100% safe and foolproof before the powers that
be in
Washington will let blind drivers behind the wheel
without the
accompaniment of a sighted driver in the passenger's
seat. Sorry to
throw water on your parade.

Gerald



-----Original Message-----
From: Jeremy
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 12:26 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In
Fatal Accident

Again, another reflexive post of yours. There's lots of
reasons why
this could have happened. It is likely these multiple
car
manufacturers are using different gPS databases and
supporting
software, as well as other yet to be determined
reasons, so what
happened here may not happen to other researchers who
are using more
developed databases--the results depend on lots of
variables. The
Google car has not had this type of history, and the
single accident
it had was due to a human disabling the computer and
taking over the
driving.

Gerald, I don't think technology is for you, so you
might consider
solutions which are less stressful to you.

JR

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io
[mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Gerald Levy
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 9:18 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal
Accident


For those of you who are chomping at the bit to buy one
of those
newfangled self-driving cars that may some day
revolutionize the
lives of us blind consumers, not so fast. The race to
develop a
safe and reliable self-driving vehicle suffered a major
setback
recently when a Tesla all-electric self-driving car was
involved in
a fatal accident that killed the driver while it was
operating in
self-driving mode. I guess it's back to the drawing
board:


http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/01/business/self-driving-tesl
a-fat
al-crash-investigation.html?_r=0

Gerald
































--
Affordably priced Accessible Talking MP3 Players,
Accessible phones,
Bluetooth devices, and accessories
http://www.talkingmp3players.com/
Email: laz@...
Phone: 727-498-0121
Skype: lazmesa
Personal Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/laz.mesa
Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/Talkingmp3players?_rdr















-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7640 / Virus Database: 4613/12537 -
Release Date:
07/01/16



































Re: all about guns and safety was Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

Carlos
 

Clocks, recorders and hearing aids are all technology.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Rajmund" <brajmund2000@...>
To: <main@TechTalk.groups.io>
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 2:46 PM
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident


Hi,
Actually, since a recorder is operated by buttons, and some sort of an under lining file system, I consider those to be technology.

Sent from a BrailleNote

----- Original Message -----
From: "Carolyn Arnold" <4carolyna@...
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Date sent: Sat, 2 Jul 2016 14:32:59 -0400
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

Guns are technical. All computers are technical, but not all
technical equipment is a computer. Now that is being very
objective from me, since anyone who knows me well knows my
viewpoint on guns. However, that viewpoint is not shared by
everyone, and I am not so dogmatic to say that only one idea
is correct. I just point out, that it would seem that guns,
while not computers, are technical. Clocks, recorders and
hearing aids are not, but we have discussed them at length.

Bye for now,

Carolyn


-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io
[mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On Behalf Of Jeremy
Sent: Saturday, July 2, 2016 7:52 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk]
Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

Hi Carlos,

In hopes of not stepping on toes, I think you might want to
define what is meant by technology as it relates to this
list. I don't think most would consider guns technology in
terms of the scope of blind members wanting to know about
computer sciences and general computing. As is, it appears
that just about anything can be considered technology is one
thinks about it.
Would the study of ants be considered technology if an
electronic device is used to watch them at work? Would
Woman's make-up be on topic on this list if someone twists
him or herself in pretzels to box up a question using a
technology slant? I think most list members consider
computers and all they do for us as on topic, but
seismographs and oscilloscopes might not be as relevant.
...Just looking for a bit more clarity.

JR

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io
[mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On Behalf Of Carlos
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 4:12 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk]
Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident

Guns are most certainly technology and I personally don't
have a problem with the discussion, but I believe some
members might not be quite as understanding so we might want
to close this topic or move it to the chat list as was
suggested.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt" <matt.from.florida@...
To: <main@TechTalk.groups.io
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 1:42 AM
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk]
Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal Accident


Well it not just because it a gun thread if it was about
guns and the
technology that could be implemted on them then it would
be on topic.
But just guns in general no . or if it is abut guns and
blindness it
would be on topic. As carlos is fairly flexable and most
anything
technology wise or blindness related is on topic . But I
have no
problem about moving to the chat room.


Matt.from.florida@...

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io
[mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Jeremy
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 1:31 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk]
Self-Driving Car
Involved In Fatal Accident

It might be time for the chat list as this topic has now
morphed into
some sort of gun thread.

JR

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io
[mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Matt
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 10:28 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: all about guns and safety was [TechTalk]
Self-Driving Car
Involved In Fatal Accident

Well this is true on single action revolvers of today and
it is still
the safety way is to let the hammer set on an empty
chamber. Now you
could do the same for a double action as well let it set
on the empty
chamber but you don't have to . As the trigger pull unless
modified is
usually a fairly heavy pull anyhow. . but the safest way
is not to put
your finger on the trigger till you are ready to pull it.
they really
have 4types of revolvers as I know. They are single shot,
single
action, double action only and DASA (Double action plus
single action)
another words you can just pull the trigger or you can
cock the hammer
and pull the trigger. Your choice. Most double action only
does not
have an external hammer.
Now I was brought up with guns and had them around me and
learn at
every early age about them and how to handle them. But you
need to get
training on handling them and using them as well as
training on the
laws and how to protect yourself with them. it is much
more than just
going out and buying gun. This is just stupid. I not a big
fan of most
regulation but some I am and some I have no problem with
them at all.
But I don't know if we are not sort of straying off topic
and off the
the subject as well so this might need to be moved to the
chat room.


Matt.from.florida@...


-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io
[mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of James Bentley
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 1:00 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal
Accident

You can't even pull the trigger on a single action
revolver unless the
hammer is cocked back in to the firing position. You
never cock the
gun unless you intend to discharge it.

Most double action revolvers do not have a safety because
the gun still
needs to be cocked before it can be fired. Or, the
necessary trigger
travel to discharge the gun is so great that it would be
almost
impossible to accidentily pull the trigger far enough to
shoot the gun.

James



-----Original Message-----
From: Matt
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 11:33 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal
Accident

You can on most all pistols you cannot on revolvers the
safety is not
to pull the trigger.


Matt.from.florida@...

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io
[mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Pamela Dominguez
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 10:26 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal
Accident

I think you can lock the trigger. Pam.

-----Original Message-----
From: Rajmund
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 6:19 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal
Accident

My problem with a gun would be, what if I accidently
trigger it in my
pocket? Or sit on it, or whatever?
Knife, cane, spray, they're all good, but I'd be worried
with a gun.
Sent from a BrailleNote

----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt" <matt.from.florida@...
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Date sent: Fri, 1 Jul 2016 18:12:42 -0400
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal
Accident

Nothing wrong with pepper spray in certain events but you
don't take
pepper spray to a gun fight or a knife fight or even a
baseball bat
fight. If you did you would be on the losing end of the
fight for
sure!
You can have lots of things in your protection tool box!
Pepper spray
is one of them. But it should not be the only thing. You
should have
a knife , stun gun or Taser and a gun for sure a good old
fashion
hickory cane with a good hook to it that is very pointed
at the end of
the hook is good or asord cane is good. But a water gun
is not much
good unless you have something besides water in it.



Matt.from.florida@...


-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io
[mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Rajmund
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 4:55 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal
Accident

Hi All,
Speaking of protection, I'd feel safer with a bottle of
pepper spray
myself, too. I have worries about guns myself, but the
good old
pepper spray.

Sent from a BrailleNote

----- Original Message -----
From: "Laz" <laz@...
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Date sent: Fri, 1 Jul 2016 14:55:52 -0400
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal
Accident

Gerald, I really hope you're just joking with all this
drivel. I know
one of these so-called "blind extremists" who carries a
gun and he
carries it for protection only. The times he has shot it
in public
was because he was being threatened by four sighted
extremist thugs
also known as criminals, who were threatening to not only
rob him but
cause him physical harm. He took out his gun and shot
once, straight
up into the air. Yes, the extremist thugs quickly ran
away in fright
and I hope they also needed to do some laundry quickly
afterward.
Who
knows what would have happened to my friend if he hadn't
been legally
carrying his weapon. But I know I'm wasting my time with
telling you
that as you're not for the individual and his rights but
for some
other agenda instead. BTW there are more deaths due to
automobile
accidents than there are due to shootings so this brings
it back
around to your glass half full attitude aimed at
self-driving cars
which have caused how many deaths so far...

Laz

On 7/1/16, Gerald Levy <bwaylimited@...> wrote:

That's a damn good question. Why, indeed, are some blind
extremists
allowed

to walk around with guns? Oh, excuse me, it's their
constitutional right.
Never mind that they place the rest of us at risk. It's
bad enough
that terrorists and sociopaths are allowed to buy and own
firearms.
But blind
consumers as well? No wonder this country is a screwed up
mess that
has become beholden to dangerous demagogues like Donald
Trump.

Gerald



-----Original Message-----
From: Carlos
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 1:45 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal
Accident

It is nonsense because it is simply not possible. And if
the
lawmakers were so determined to put a halt to any
technology that is
not 100% safe and foolproof, there are many types of
technology we
would not have access to in modern society. If the
lawmakers in
Washington care so much about keeping dangerous technology
out of the
hands of the blind, then why are there several blind
individuals who
are still being allowed to legally own firearms?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gerald Levy" <bwaylimited@...
To: <main@TechTalk.groups.io
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 1:38 PM
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal
Accident



You may think that making self-driving cars 100% foolproof
is nonsense.
But
you can bet that the lawmakers in Washington and elsewhere
won't see
it that way. They will demand that self-driving vehicles
be made as
close to 100% foolproof as possible before they consider
enacting
legislation that would allow blind drivers to operate them
without the
accompaniment of a sighted driver. That's just the
realities of
politics in a predominantly sighted world.

Gerald



-----Original Message-----
From: Carlos
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 1:11 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal
Accident

Who knows when blind people will be allowed to manage
these types of cars.
Will it be any time soon? Probably not, but there is a
difference
between soon and never. But as far as I'm concerned, the
other issue
here is this ridiculous assumption that somehow the
technology should
be or ever can be made 100% safe and foolproof. That is
just nonsense
and trying to predict the future of the technology based
on one
accident or even several is just more nonsense.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt" <matt.from.florida@...
To: <main@TechTalk.groups.io
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 12:59 PM
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal
Accident


Well I usually don't or try not to look at things with a
half empty
blass but a half full one. But in some cases this is just
not
possible. I have to agree with him on this Gerald . It
is also not
just the US legislature but from state to state. Just
like all
driving laws vary from state to state..
It
is called states' rights and there forth each state will
more than
likely implement it on law on driving driverless cars. I
also think
they would require very special training even for the
sited but
certainly for the blind person as well! I just don't see
the blind
being able to do this in my life time and I hope to be
here around
another 30 years. I am coming up on my 58th birthday.


Matt.from.florida@...

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io
[mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Gerald Levy
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 12:49 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal
Accident


It really doesn't matter what caused the accident. The
bottom line is
that it will be a very long time, if ever, before blind
consumers are
allowed to operate one of these gizmos by themselves. One
fatal
accident is still one fatal accident too many. These
vehicles must be
made 100% safe and foolproof before the powers that be in
Washington
will let blind drivers behind the wheel without the
accompaniment of a
sighted driver in the passenger's seat. Sorry to throw
water on your
parade.

Gerald



-----Original Message-----
From: Jeremy
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 12:26 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal
Accident

Again, another reflexive post of yours. There's lots of
reasons why
this could have happened. It is likely these multiple car

manufacturers are using different gPS databases and
supporting
software, as well as other yet to be determined reasons,
so what
happened here may not happen to other researchers who are
using more
developed databases--the results depend on lots of
variables. The
Google car has not had this type of history, and the
single accident
it had was due to a human disabling the computer and
taking over the
driving.

Gerald, I don't think technology is for you, so you might
consider
solutions which are less stressful to you.

JR

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io
[mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Gerald Levy
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 9:18 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: [TechTalk] Self-Driving Car Involved In Fatal
Accident


For those of you who are chomping at the bit to buy one of
those
newfangled
self-driving cars that may some day revolutionize the
lives of us blind
consumers, not so fast. The race to develop a safe and
reliable
self-driving vehicle suffered a major setback recently
when a Tesla
all-electric self-driving car was involved in a fatal
accident that killed
the driver while it was operating in self-driving mode. I
guess it's back
to the drawing board:



http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/01/business/self-driving-tesl
a-fat
al-crash-investigation.html?_r=0

Gerald
































--
Affordably priced Accessible Talking MP3 Players,
Accessible phones,
Bluetooth devices, and accessories
http://www.talkingmp3players.com/
Email: laz@...
Phone: 727-498-0121
Skype: lazmesa
Personal Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/laz.mesa
Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/Talkingmp3players?_rdr















-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7640 / Virus Database: 4613/12537 -
Release Date: 07/01/16




































Re: How frequently do you use the Windows Narrator screen reader? #poll

Carolyn Arnold
 

And my password has eleven characters; I was told it had to have at least six. I used my Windstream one, not my Windows one. Maybe that is where I went wrong.

Bye for now,

Carolyn

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On Behalf Of Matt
Sent: Saturday, July 2, 2016 9:56 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] How frequently do you use the Windows Narrator screen reader? #poll

Well you got to log in so what is the deal with that ? what am I logging into?!





Matt.from.florida@... <mailto:Matt.from.florida@...>



From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On Behalf Of Carlos
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 9:49 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] How frequently do you use the Windows Narrator screen reader? #poll



LOL click on the

Vote Now <https://techtalk.groups.io/g/main/vote?pollid=137>

link and choose an option to make it official. This way everyone can also view the results of the poll.

----- Original Message -----

From: Loy <mailto:loyrg2845@...>

To: main@TechTalk.groups.io <mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io>

Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 9:45 AM

Subject: Re: [TechTalk] How frequently do you use the Windows Narrator screen reader? #poll



I never use narrator.

----- Original Message -----

From: Carlos <mailto:carlos1106@...>

To: main@TechTalk.groups.io <mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io>

Sent: Saturday, July 2, 2016 9:39 AM

Subject: [TechTalk] How frequently do you use the Windows Narrator screen reader? #poll



A new poll has been created:

Just for fun and because we rarely use this feature.



1. I only use Narrator for emergencies
2. I never use Narrator
3. I use Narrator regularly

Vote Now <https://TechTalk.groups.io/g/main/vote?pollid=137>

80061 - 80080 of 106920