Date   

Re: Uber Self-Driving Car Hits and Kills Pedestrian

Evan Reese
 

Gene,
Thanks for the benefit of the doubt.
It was in no way an attack on Enes personally, and it was not racist.
You are correct that I did not think things out before I made the joke.
It was in response to his joke about space aliens remotely driving autonomous vehicles, and not at all about illegal aliens.
I apologize for not thinking more before posting it and I hope that will be the end of it.
Evan
 

From: Gene
Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2018 2:59 AM
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Uber Self-Driving Car Hits and Kills Pedestrian
 
You don't know that.  I don't make assumptions about someone's faith or nationality or what country they live in based on their name.  And you have no basis to assume the joke had that intent.  The word alien can be used to mean a legal status, a noncitizen  of a country.  The word also means a being from outer space.  It may have been a joke in bad or questionable taste but not every questionable mjoke is an attack.  People don't always think things out or understand the implications of what they say.  I think that such jokes should be refrained from in future but assumption of motive when someone makes such a joke, unless it is more blatant and obvious, isn't supported.  You can say that you think it may be an attack.  But it isn't overt or blatant enough to draw any conclusion.
 
Gene
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2018 12:32 AM
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Uber Self-Driving Car Hits and Kills Pedestrian
 

actually, the comment was a racest comment directed against me, my nationality and my faith. My name reflects my faith and I am proud of it.


On 3/20/2018 8:02 AM, Gene wrote:
that was the point of the joke, the two meanings of the word alien.
 
People can read all sorts of meanings into it but there is no reason to believe it means anything but a pun on two meanings of the word.  It isn't disparaging.  there is nothing inherently disparaging about the word. 
 
If the contraversy becomes divisive, I shall stop the thread.  If whatever disagreement exists can be discussed reasonably civilly, and doesn't take over the list, I'll let it run.  It's better to work things out than just stop a possible disagreement with no resolution.
 
Gene
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2018 10:15 PM
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Uber Self-Driving Car Hits and Kills Pedestrian
 

I did in no way target immigrants or such people in my post. I was joking about an imiginary race of imiginary aliens.


On 3/20/2018 6:02 AM, Evan Reese wrote:
Besides, he laughed, so I think he has a sense of humor.
If he doesn’t, well, my bad then.
Evan
 
From: Cristóbal
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2018 10:58 PM
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Uber Self-Driving Car Hits and Kills Pedestrian
 

Cracking ethnic jokes now are we…

 

From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On Behalf Of Evan Reese
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2018 7:54 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Uber Self-Driving Car Hits and Kills Pedestrian

 

Wait a minute, someone with the name of enes sarıbaş is talking about aliens? Hahaha!

Evan

 

From: enes sarıbaş

Sent: Monday, March 19, 2018 10:24 PM

Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Uber Self-Driving Car Hits and Kills Pedestrian

 

they are driven by aliens remotely who come from a planet 2500 light years away from us. Lol!

 

On 3/20/2018 3:23 AM, Sharon Hooley wrote:

Do self-driving cars run on tracks, or how do they work?

 

 

On Mar 19, 2018, at 3:33 PM, Gerald Levy <bwaylimited@...> wrote:

 

 

I disagree.  This is a major setback for self-driving vehicles.  Many cities will now pass laws that severely restrict or even ban outright the use of self-driving vehicles on public streets.  New York already has such laws.  And both Uber and the municipality where the fatal accident occurred will face lawsuits from the family of the victim.  Given Uber’s well-publicized management problems, they could conceivably be sued out of existence.  At the very least, they will probably not be able to resume their self-driving vehicle program until the litigation is settled, which could take years, if they even survive that long.

 

Gerald

 

 

 

From: Evan Reese

Sent: Monday, March 19, 2018 4:13 PM

Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Uber Self-Driving Car Hits and Kills Pedestrian

 

It won’t be that long a delay. While one self driving car killed one person, a tragedy

to be sure, during the same 24 hour period, if previous year’s statistics are even

remotely close to this year’s, human drivers killed around 100 people. And that’s

just in this country.

Well before this accident, autonomous vehicles drove over 1 million miles without

a fatality.

There may be some delay, but it won’t be much.

Evan

 

From: Gerald Levy

Sent: Monday, March 19, 2018 4:09 PM

Subject: [TechTalk] Uber Self-Driving Car Hits and Kills Pedestrian

 

 

For those of you who can’t waint to buy a self-driving car, you may have a long waint.  Uber has suspended its self-driving vehicle program after one of its autonomous vehicles hit and killed a pedestrian in Arizona:

 

 

Gerald

 

 

 

 




Re: Uber Self-Driving Car Hits and Kills Pedestrian

Evan Reese
 

He was talking about space aliens, not illegal aliens.
It was not a joke about immigrants.
Evan
 

From: Cristóbal
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2018 11:16 PM
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Uber Self-Driving Car Hits and Kills Pedestrian
 

You know, I can trace my direct ancestors back over 400 years to the first European settlers of New mexico in 1598 along with the native population. As wellas subsequent Spanish resettlements throughout the 1600s.

What is an alien name to you exactly? Keeping in mind, this is an international list discussing a technology not exclusive to the US. So . . . What is with the alien jokes? Why do you consider a particular name to be “alien”? Where is the joke? Is my name in your opinion alien? Is going back to the 1500s still not far back enough for you to not be considered non-American? What is your criteria exactly?

 

From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On Behalf Of Evan Reese
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2018 8:02 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Uber Self-Driving Car Hits and Kills Pedestrian

 

I wasn’t the one who brought up aliens.

Evan

 

From: Cristóbal

Sent: Monday, March 19, 2018 10:58 PM

Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Uber Self-Driving Car Hits and Kills Pedestrian

 

Cracking ethnic jokes now are we…

 

From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On Behalf Of Evan Reese
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2018 7:54 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Uber Self-Driving Car Hits and Kills Pedestrian

 

Wait a minute, someone with the name of enes sarıbaş is talking about aliens? Hahaha!

Evan

 

From: enes sarıbaş

Sent: Monday, March 19, 2018 10:24 PM

Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Uber Self-Driving Car Hits and Kills Pedestrian

 

they are driven by aliens remotely who come from a planet 2500 light years away from us. Lol!

 

On 3/20/2018 3:23 AM, Sharon Hooley wrote:

Do self-driving cars run on tracks, or how do they work?

 

 

On Mar 19, 2018, at 3:33 PM, Gerald Levy <bwaylimited@...> wrote:

 

 

I disagree.  This is a major setback for self-driving vehicles.  Many cities will now pass laws that severely restrict or even ban outright the use of self-driving vehicles on public streets.  New York already has such laws.  And both Uber and the municipality where the fatal accident occurred will face lawsuits from the family of the victim.  Given Uber’s well-publicized management problems, they could conceivably be sued out of existence.  At the very least, they will probably not be able to resume their self-driving vehicle program until the litigation is settled, which could take years, if they even survive that long.

 

Gerald

 

 

 

From: Evan Reese

Sent: Monday, March 19, 2018 4:13 PM

Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Uber Self-Driving Car Hits and Kills Pedestrian

 

It won’t be that long a delay. While one self driving car killed one person, a tragedy

to be sure, during the same 24 hour period, if previous year’s statistics are even

remotely close to this year’s, human drivers killed around 100 people. And that’s

just in this country.

Well before this accident, autonomous vehicles drove over 1 million miles without

a fatality.

There may be some delay, but it won’t be much.

Evan

 

From: Gerald Levy

Sent: Monday, March 19, 2018 4:09 PM

Subject: [TechTalk] Uber Self-Driving Car Hits and Kills Pedestrian

 

 

For those of you who can’t waint to buy a self-driving car, you may have a long waint.  Uber has suspended its self-driving vehicle program after one of its autonomous vehicles hit and killed a pedestrian in Arizona:

 

 

Gerald

 

 

 

 


Re: Uber Self-Driving Car Hits and Kills Pedestrian

Cristóbal
 

He specifically referenced the name in his "alien joke". As though the name by sounding "foreign" is equal to alien or the other.

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On Behalf Of Carolyn Arnold
Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2018 8:51 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Uber Self-Driving Car Hits and Kills Pedestrian

I took the alien thing from outer space, didn't even think of another country.

Love more than you're loved, give more than you're given, appreciate the small things,

Carolyn

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On Behalf Of Gene
Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2018 2:59 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Uber Self-Driving Car Hits and Kills Pedestrian

You don't know that. I don't make assumptions about someone's faith or nationality or what country they live in based on their name. And you have no basis to assume the joke had that intent. The word alien can be used to mean a legal status, a noncitizen of a country. The word also means a being from outer space. It may have been a joke in bad or questionable taste but not every questionable mjoke is an attack. People don't always think things out or understand the implications of what they say. I think that such jokes should be refrained from in future but assumption of motive when someone makes such a joke, unless it is more blatant and obvious, isn't supported. You can say that you think it may be an attack. But it isn't overt or blatant enough to draw any conclusion.

Gene
----- Original Message -----
From: enes sarıbaş <mailto:enes.saribas@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2018 12:32 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io <mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Uber Self-Driving Car Hits and Kills Pedestrian


actually, the comment was a racest comment directed against me, my nationality and my faith. My name reflects my faith and I am proud of it.



On 3/20/2018 8:02 AM, Gene wrote:


that was the point of the joke, the two meanings of the word alien.

People can read all sorts of meanings into it but there is no reason to believe it means anything but a pun on two meanings of the word. It isn't disparaging. there is nothing inherently disparaging about the word.

If the contraversy becomes divisive, I shall stop the thread. If whatever disagreement exists can be discussed reasonably civilly, and doesn't take over the list, I'll let it run. It's better to work things out than just stop a possible disagreement with no resolution.

Gene
----- Original Message -----

From: enes sarıbaş <mailto:enes.saribas@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2018 10:15 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io <mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Uber Self-Driving Car Hits and Kills Pedestrian


I did in no way target immigrants or such people in my post. I was joking about an imiginary race of imiginary aliens.



On 3/20/2018 6:02 AM, Evan Reese wrote:


Besides, he laughed, so I think he has a sense of humor.
If he doesn’t, well, my bad then.
Evan

From: Cristóbal <mailto:crismunoz54@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2018 10:58 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io <mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Uber Self-Driving Car Hits and Kills Pedestrian


Cracking ethnic jokes now are we…



From: main@TechTalk.groups.io <mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io> [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On Behalf Of Evan Reese
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2018 7:54 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io <mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Uber Self-Driving Car Hits and Kills Pedestrian



Wait a minute, someone with the name of enes sarıbaş is talking about aliens? Hahaha!

Evan



From: enes sarıbaş <mailto:enes.saribas@gmail.com>

Sent: Monday, March 19, 2018 10:24 PM

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

Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Uber Self-Driving Car Hits and Kills Pedestrian



they are driven by aliens remotely who come from a planet 2500 light years away from us. Lol!



On 3/20/2018 3:23 AM, Sharon Hooley wrote:

Do self-driving cars run on tracks, or how do they work?





On Mar 19, 2018, at 3:33 PM, Gerald Levy <bwaylimited@verizon.net <mailto:bwaylimited@verizon.net> > wrote:





I disagree. This is a major setback for self-driving vehicles. Many cities will now pass laws that severely restrict or even ban outright the use of self-driving vehicles on public streets. New York already has such laws. And both Uber and the municipality where the fatal accident occurred will face lawsuits from the family of the victim. Given Uber’s well-publicized management problems, they could conceivably be sued out of existence. At the very least, they will probably not be able to resume their self-driving vehicle program until the litigation is settled, which could take years, if they even survive that long.



Gerald







From: Evan Reese <mailto:mentat1@dslextreme.com>

Sent: Monday, March 19, 2018 4:13 PM

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

Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Uber Self-Driving Car Hits and Kills Pedestrian



It won’t be that long a delay. While one self driving car killed one person, a tragedy

to be sure, during the same 24 hour period, if previous year’s statistics are even

remotely close to this year’s, human drivers killed around 100 people. And that’s

just in this country.

Well before this accident, autonomous vehicles drove over 1 million miles without

a fatality.

There may be some delay, but it won’t be much.

Evan



From: Gerald Levy <mailto:bwaylimited@verizon.net>

Sent: Monday, March 19, 2018 4:09 PM

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

Subject: [TechTalk] Uber Self-Driving Car Hits and Kills Pedestrian





For those of you who can’t waint to buy a self-driving car, you may have a long waint. Uber has suspended its self-driving vehicle program after one of its autonomous vehicles hit and killed a pedestrian in Arizona:



https://arstechnica.com/cars/2018/03/uber-self-driving-car-hits-and-kills-pedestrian/



Gerald


Re: Uber Self-Driving Car Hits and Kills Pedestrian

Carolyn Arnold
 

I took the alien thing from outer space, didn't even think of another country.

Love more than you're loved, give more than you're given, appreciate the small things,

Carolyn

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On Behalf Of Gene
Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2018 2:59 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Uber Self-Driving Car Hits and Kills Pedestrian

You don't know that. I don't make assumptions about someone's faith or nationality or what country they live in based on their name. And you have no basis to assume the joke had that intent. The word alien can be used to mean a legal status, a noncitizen of a country. The word also means a being from outer space. It may have been a joke in bad or questionable taste but not every questionable mjoke is an attack. People don't always think things out or understand the implications of what they say. I think that such jokes should be refrained from in future but assumption of motive when someone makes such a joke, unless it is more blatant and obvious, isn't supported. You can say that you think it may be an attack. But it isn't overt or blatant enough to draw any conclusion.

Gene
----- Original Message -----
From: enes sarıbaş <mailto:enes.saribas@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2018 12:32 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io <mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Uber Self-Driving Car Hits and Kills Pedestrian


actually, the comment was a racest comment directed against me, my nationality and my faith. My name reflects my faith and I am proud of it.



On 3/20/2018 8:02 AM, Gene wrote:


that was the point of the joke, the two meanings of the word alien.

People can read all sorts of meanings into it but there is no reason to believe it means anything but a pun on two meanings of the word. It isn't disparaging. there is nothing inherently disparaging about the word.

If the contraversy becomes divisive, I shall stop the thread. If whatever disagreement exists can be discussed reasonably civilly, and doesn't take over the list, I'll let it run. It's better to work things out than just stop a possible disagreement with no resolution.

Gene
----- Original Message -----

From: enes sarıbaş <mailto:enes.saribas@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2018 10:15 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io <mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Uber Self-Driving Car Hits and Kills Pedestrian


I did in no way target immigrants or such people in my post. I was joking about an imiginary race of imiginary aliens.



On 3/20/2018 6:02 AM, Evan Reese wrote:


Besides, he laughed, so I think he has a sense of humor.
If he doesn’t, well, my bad then.
Evan

From: Cristóbal <mailto:crismunoz54@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2018 10:58 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io <mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Uber Self-Driving Car Hits and Kills Pedestrian


Cracking ethnic jokes now are we…



From: main@TechTalk.groups.io <mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io> [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On Behalf Of Evan Reese
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2018 7:54 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io <mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Uber Self-Driving Car Hits and Kills Pedestrian



Wait a minute, someone with the name of enes sarıbaş is talking about aliens? Hahaha!

Evan



From: enes sarıbaş <mailto:enes.saribas@gmail.com>

Sent: Monday, March 19, 2018 10:24 PM

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

Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Uber Self-Driving Car Hits and Kills Pedestrian



they are driven by aliens remotely who come from a planet 2500 light years away from us. Lol!



On 3/20/2018 3:23 AM, Sharon Hooley wrote:

Do self-driving cars run on tracks, or how do they work?





On Mar 19, 2018, at 3:33 PM, Gerald Levy <bwaylimited@verizon.net <mailto:bwaylimited@verizon.net> > wrote:





I disagree. This is a major setback for self-driving vehicles. Many cities will now pass laws that severely restrict or even ban outright the use of self-driving vehicles on public streets. New York already has such laws. And both Uber and the municipality where the fatal accident occurred will face lawsuits from the family of the victim. Given Uber’s well-publicized management problems, they could conceivably be sued out of existence. At the very least, they will probably not be able to resume their self-driving vehicle program until the litigation is settled, which could take years, if they even survive that long.



Gerald







From: Evan Reese <mailto:mentat1@dslextreme.com>

Sent: Monday, March 19, 2018 4:13 PM

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

Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Uber Self-Driving Car Hits and Kills Pedestrian



It won’t be that long a delay. While one self driving car killed one person, a tragedy

to be sure, during the same 24 hour period, if previous year’s statistics are even

remotely close to this year’s, human drivers killed around 100 people. And that’s

just in this country.

Well before this accident, autonomous vehicles drove over 1 million miles without

a fatality.

There may be some delay, but it won’t be much.

Evan



From: Gerald Levy <mailto:bwaylimited@verizon.net>

Sent: Monday, March 19, 2018 4:09 PM

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

Subject: [TechTalk] Uber Self-Driving Car Hits and Kills Pedestrian





For those of you who can’t waint to buy a self-driving car, you may have a long waint. Uber has suspended its self-driving vehicle program after one of its autonomous vehicles hit and killed a pedestrian in Arizona:



https://arstechnica.com/cars/2018/03/uber-self-driving-car-hits-and-kills-pedestrian/



Gerald


Re: Uber Self-Driving Car Hits and Kills Pedestrian

Angelo Sonnesso
 

The local sheriff said that the crash could not be avoided.

73 N2DYN Angelo

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io <main@TechTalk.groups.io> On Behalf Of Jaffar Sidek
Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2018 10:37 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Uber Self-Driving Car Hits and Kills Pedestrian

Anyway, what makes human driven cars any safer? Add in such human depravities as Drink driving, wrecklessness, hit and run incidences, and you find that self-driven cars could be in fact, much more safe since computers are incapable of sinking into inhuman levels. I've travelled on airplanes that are put on auto pilot to allow the human pilots needed rest, And I'm still around to tell the tale, as I suspect, some of you are too. Cheers!


On 3/20/2018 9:35 PM, Mike Thomas wrote:
News reports this morning on the accident, claim the woman was
crossing the street illegally by not crossing at a crosswalk.
Autonomous cars cannot predict and may not be ready for irradic human
behavior. This car also had a human backup. Where was his
interaction? I continue to be in favor of the technology.
Undoubtedly those human indiscretions will attempt to be taken into
consideration by the vehicles, but not all situations can be
prevented. Had that have been a small child that didn't clear the
hood of the parked cars, human drivers as well as autonomous cars
could not have prevented the tragedy. If you consider the miles
driven by autonomous cars without an accident, I'm sure the safety
factor is far ahead of cars with human operators applying makeup,
reading the headlines of a news story, talking or sending a cell phone
text, etc. I'll much easier entrust my safety to the technology of
today above that of a distracted public.
Mike
----- Original Message -----
From: "Carolyn Arnold" <4carolyna@windstream.net>
To: <main@TechTalk.groups.io>
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2018 8:13 PM
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Uber Self-Driving Car Hits and Kills
Pedestrian


It is interesting about young people. My granddaughter finally got her
learner's permit; she'll be 17 in July. Used to, people would be at
the DMV when the door opened on their 16th birthday.

As for self-driving cars, we've had the technology in subway trains
and trains at the air terminals for years, and it works just fine.

I'm not saying that if they come out, I want to get one or if they are
available how soon I'd want to try, might rather have Uber (which
probably would be self driven at that point) but not my responsibility
for a way long time to come. By then, I'd be pretty old, as some of
you know I already have a good start in that direction.

Love more than you're loved, give more than you're given, appreciate
the small things,

Carolyn

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On
Behalf Of Gene
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2018 6:42 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Uber Self-Driving Car Hits and Kills
Pedestrian

Further on this topic, there is a great deal of interest among
businesses in self-driving technology. Delivery services such as UPS
want to use it, large pizza delivery companies want to use it.
Drivers are a very large expense. Uber and other companies want to
use it for the same reason.

Many people, as individual drivers, may not want to for a time. but
when time goes by and if the technology is safe, or as safe as can
reasonably be expected, nothing is completely safe, they will see how
much time they are losing that they could be using for activities they
want to do. Young people are less interested in driving than earlier
generations. They want to use their time in other ways.

Gene

----- Original Message -----
For those of you who can’t waint to buy a self-driving car, you may
have a long waint. Uber has suspended its self-driving vehicle
program after one of its autonomous vehicles hit and killed a
pedestrian in Arizona:

https://arstechnica.com/cars/2018/03/uber-self-driving-car-hits-and-ki
lls-pedestrian/


Gerald












Re: Outlook question

Carolyn Arnold
 

I don't know. That is really irritating. It happens to me some of the time, but not all.

Love more than you're loved, give more than you're given, appreciate the small things,

Carolyn

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On Behalf Of Donald Hansan
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2018 10:19 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: [TechTalk] Outlook question

Hello:



I am using Outlook 2013. When I send a message and the spell checker comes on, the first misspelled word is not spoken until I tab to the suggestions column. How can I fix this?



Thanks



Don


Re: Uber Self-Driving Car Hits and Kills Pedestrian

Gene
 

A Modest Proposal:
Since the human driver didn't prevent the accident, then maybe it's just as logical to ban human drivers.  After all, they both failed and driverless cars even now, won't get tired, won't be distracted, won't get drunk, will follow traffidc rules, and in general, may well even now, be more reliable than human drivers.  Everyone's concentrating on the technology that failed.  The human technology failed as well.  So you can argue either way.  it's just bias against the computer technology that results in not concentrating as much or more on the human technology that failed.
 
I'm not seriously saying self-driving cars are ready for general use.  But I am pointing out how implicit and unrecognized bias can distort thinking in serious ways.
 
Gene

----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2018 8:35 AM
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Uber Self-Driving Car Hits and Kills Pedestrian

News reports this morning on the accident, claim the woman was crossing the
street illegally by not crossing at a crosswalk.  Autonomous cars cannot
predict and may not be ready for irradic human behavior.  This car also had
a human  backup.  Where was his interaction?  I continue to be in favor of
the technology.  Undoubtedly those human indiscretions will attempt to be
taken into consideration by the vehicles, but not all situations can be
prevented.  Had that have been a small child that didn't clear the hood of
the parked cars, human drivers as well as autonomous cars could not have
prevented the tragedy.  If you consider the miles driven by autonomous cars
without an accident, I'm sure the safety factor is far ahead of cars with
human operators applying makeup, reading the headlines of a news story,
talking or sending a cell phone text, etc.  I'll much easier entrust my
safety to the technology of today above that of a distracted public.
Mike
----- Original Message -----
From: "Carolyn Arnold" <4carolyna@...>
To: <main@TechTalk.groups.io>
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2018 8:13 PM
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Uber Self-Driving Car Hits and Kills Pedestrian


It is interesting about young people. My granddaughter finally got her
learner's permit; she'll be 17 in July. Used to, people would be at the DMV
when the door opened on their 16th birthday.

As for self-driving cars, we've had the technology in subway trains and
trains at the air terminals for years, and it works just fine.

I'm not saying that if they come out, I want to get one or if they are
available how soon I'd want to try, might rather have Uber (which probably
would be self driven at that point) but not my responsibility for a way long
time to come. By then, I'd be pretty old, as some of you know I already have
a good start in that direction.

Love more than you're loved, give more than you're given, appreciate the
small things,

Carolyn

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On Behalf Of
Gene
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2018 6:42 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Uber Self-Driving Car Hits and Kills Pedestrian

Further on this topic, there is a great deal of interest among businesses in
self-driving technology.  Delivery services such as UPS want to use it,
large pizza delivery companies want to use it.  Drivers are a very large
expense.  Uber and other companies want to use it for the same reason.

Many people, as individual drivers, may not want to for a time.  but when
time goes by and if the technology is safe, or as safe as can reasonably be
expected, nothing is completely safe, they will see how much time they are
losing that they could be using for activities they want to do.  Young
people are less interested in driving than earlier generations.  They want
to use their time in other ways.

Gene

----- Original Message -----
For those of you who can’t waint to buy a self-driving car, you may have a
long waint.  Uber has suspended its self-driving vehicle program after one
of its autonomous vehicles hit and killed a pedestrian in Arizona:

https://arstechnica.com/cars/2018/03/uber-self-driving-car-hits-and-kills-pedestrian/

Gerald













Re: Uber Self-Driving Car Hits and Kills Pedestrian

Gene
 

How much have you discussed these criticisms with those who are satisfied with the organization?  Have you actively looked for counter examples or information?  there has been a vociferous faction that has been critical of the organization for a long time.  I'ts easy to find them.  Just because they say something doesn't mean it's true and I've never heard you or others say, I brought these points on a pro NFB list for comments and discussion.  It's always, I heard this against the NFB and this or that person says this about it.  That's hardly a way to evaluate anything and it's not difficult to do these days with all the e-mail lists around.  It would have been harder in the old days.  These days, there is no excuse not to investigate the matter.  If you don't, your comments are not substantiated.
 
Also, organizations may change over time.  When I was a teenager, the NFB formed a chapter in my state.  This was in the late sixties.  Some members of the ACB affiliate were at the formation meeting.  they didn't distinguish themselves.  they picked on minor points and were obstructive.  My strong impression is that that organization was not anywere near progressive as you term it, at that time.  But that was fifty years ago.  I haven't followed either organization to any extent for a long time.  But I know that the ACB does a lot that benefits people regarding technology.  And clearly, whole new generations of members and leadership are in the organization now and whole generations no longer are.  And that's true of The NFB as well.  So, just saying, these people say this or that on an e-mail list is completely inconclusive.  they have literature, as well.  they have e-mail lists as well.  I wouldn't dream of saying anything regarding the current state of the organization without doing some meaningful investigation and I won't.  I'll just say, I don't know enough to make any comments and I certainly won't do so based on he or she said comments of others.
 
Gene
-----

Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2018 7:08 AM
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Uber Self-Driving Car Hits and Kills Pedestrian

 
Ian, you are right on to ccriticize the NFB.  We just had a discussion about their philosophy on another list, and a few former members commented that they were indeed extreme and intolerant.  One former member even compared its late, revered president, Dr. Kenneth Jernigan, to Joseph Stalin because of his dictatorial leadership style and unwillingness to accept criticism from members who disagreed with his views.  Indeed, the NFB’s extremist philosophy is the main reason why a contingent of members broke away years ago and formed the more progressive ACB.  The fact that NFB membership has been steadily declining attests to its unpopularity with the vast majority of blind citizens in this country.
 
Gerald
 
 
 
Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2018 1:30 AM
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Uber Self-Driving Car Hits and Kills Pedestrian
 

The fact of the matter is, the NFB is indeed an extremist radical organization that does indeed take very stupid and ridiculous  positions. Examples: the nfb actually fought against paper money becoming accessible, convinced microsoft not to build a screenreader into win2k, and we know where that went, and who it benefited, claimed that blind people should be seated near emergency exits, and claimed that they outperformed sighted people, actually claimed that blind people should not be discriminated against in the race to bare arms, as if we don't have enough gun toting maniacs in the world, now we need blind gun toting maniacs. Furthermore, the NFB sent out a blanket statement to apple, asking all apps, regardless if they are visual in nature to be accessible. Are these examples enough?


On 3/20/2018 7:39 AM, Gene wrote:
I didn't say that and that has nothing to do with my point.  They have done some stupid things.  But show me a political organization that hasn't.  Plato's Republic doesn't exist.  The point is that there is a difference between your comments in your first message, which show a complete misunderstanding of the organization and what it has done and what it does, and accurate and meaningful criticism.  Your message implies that the Federation is an extremist fanatical organization that takes all sorts of ridiculous quixotic positions. 
 
Interesting that you didn't answer any of my questions about where you got your impression or putative "facts" about it. 
 
And your second message implies that they do mostly stupid things.  And no discussion of where you get your putative information to make such statements. 
 
And, though the Federation is certainly interested in promoting driverless cars, why single them out?  I haven't checked but I bet you can't show me one blindness advocacy organization in The United States that isn't in favor of them.  So why introduce gratuitous criticism or discussion of the Federation when the comments have nothing to do with the question under discussion and are just a criticism of the Federation, which has no bearing on the original question. 
 
The fact that the Federation has taken no such ridiculous position, nor does it take such positions on other issues, is prima facie evidence about your misinformed ideas about it.
 
Gene
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2018 9:21 PM
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Uber Self-Driving Car Hits and Kills Pedestrian
 

and just because they might of done a few things that made the lives of blind people better, should be eternally grateful, and not criticise the stupid or downright silly things done by them?


On 3/20/2018 1:35 AM, Gene wrote:
It's refreshing to see your message making ridiculous caricatures of a group that has done a great deal to advance the well-being of the blind in The United States.  How much literature have you read from the organization?  How much are you forming your opinion on nothing but claims from people who don't like the organization? 
 
I'm not saying there are no grounds for criticism.  But your message demonstrates such a warped and inaccurate view of the organization and its history that the comments are not relevant.
 
A word of warning:
This is not a political discussion list.  A little discussion on this topic, if it remains civil, will be allowed.  But such discussions have a lot of potential to become devisive and I'll stop the thread if this one does.
 
Gene
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2018 4:32 PM
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Uber Self-Driving Car Hits and Kills Pedestrian
 

lets have the NFB organize protests on how using a self-driving car is a constitutional right for the blind, despite the fact that they might murder someone.


On 3/19/2018 11:09 PM, Gerald Levy wrote:
 
For those of you who can’t waint to buy a self-driving car, you may have a long waint.  Uber has suspended its self-driving vehicle program after one of its autonomous vehicles hit and killed a pedestrian in Arizona:
 
 
Gerald
 
 




Re: Uber Self-Driving Car Hits and Kills Pedestrian

Gene
 

You said you have better things to do than read their propaganda.  Any reasonable person would conclude that you haven't read it or not to any extent.  I'm not even talking about doing a lot of reading.  I'm talking about reading some or most of two Braille Monitors and looking at an article such as Blindness, is History Against us?" to get a sense of the organization's approach.  If you have read enough to amount to something, contrary to the strong implication in your statement, please clarify.
 
Gene

----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2018 5:17 AM
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Uber Self-Driving Car Hits and Kills Pedestrian

I did not say that I didn't read the literature. I said I had better things to do than follow it.


On 3/20/2018 11:37 AM, Gene wrote:
You have described the organization as radical and portrayed them as unreasonable fanatics.  Yet you won't read any of their literature.  You dismiss it as propaganda.  You haven't even read it to know if it is.  A lot of the material is dealing with serious discrimination issues such as children being taken away from blind parents or the inadequacies of enforcement of accessibility standards in work places. A lot of it deals with blind people discussing how they have learned to develop self-confidence and to realize that they could do various things because they believed the stereotypes society taught them.  It's a self-help aspect of the organization and it helps a lot of people.  You can't say it's propaganda if you know nothing about it.   
 
I'm not advocating for any specific organization.  If you attacked another and I knew anything about it, I'd make the same points if the attack was not accurate.  If you are tgoing to criticize an organization, you need to know something about it. 
 
Gene
----- original Message -----

Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2018 3:03 AM
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Uber Self-Driving Car Hits and Kills Pedestrian

hi,

I have much better things  to do with my time than read their propaganda pieces.


On 3/20/2018 10:51 AM, Gene wrote:
See this article on the subject of blind people and accessible money.  the NFB doesn't express opposition to accessible money.  You may disagree with the stated position but it is a disagree ment with the premise the court based its decision on. 
 
I think the Federation is too worried about the possible effects of such cases and by various accessibility initiatives.  I think the sighted world's perception of blind people is so bad that these sorts of things won't make it worse.  And I think that money should be accessible and that having it so won't have any negative impact on society's image of blind people.  But this is the kind of oversensativity that is understandable if you suffer daily unending discrimination all your life.  Is overcompensation and an overconcern with the image of blind people based on daily serious discrimination or does this sensativity stem from another cause?  Whatever the case, this is hardly radical or unreasonable.  I disagree with it.  But it hardly makes the organization villains and they do a lot of good.  Again, have you read their literature to any extent?  If all you do is hear and react against this or that which is picked up around the blind community and you don't read The Braille Monitor enough to see what the organization is doing and saying in general, you will have a distorted view. 
 
Gene
----- Original Message -----
From: Gene
Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2018 2:23 AM
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Uber Self-Driving Car Hits and Kills Pedestrian

You are assuming that a blind person can't shoot in self-defense if the person can hear the target.  How about this statement?  To cross a street, you need to see the cars and see the other side.  Your argument is the same.  Circular reasoning.  Just because a sighted person thinks sighte is needed to perform a task, doesn't make it so.  If it were actually true that sight were necessary to do a lot of the things sighted people assume it is necessary for, then blind people really would be helpless and incapable of doing much of anything. 
 
The solution to not having an affordable screen-reader is not to create a monopoly.  It is to either subsidize screen-readers to make them affordable, or, as has been done, to develop a screen-reader like NVDA.  A lot of blind people are much better off having choice in screen-readers and in having competition. 
 
I may check one or two.  I tried to check what I consider to be the NFB screen-reader myth before.  I found nothing.  Here is a brief opinion piece on blind people owning guns.  It proves my point.  What you call radical and unrealistic is belied by this person's experience.  This article is very reasonable.  it isn't shrill, it isn't angry, it isn't militant.  it quietly makes a very good argument.  And unless you can show me properly done tests that present strong evidence that a blind person can't learn to listen and aim well enough to be useful if necessary, then you haven't proven your case.  You can argue that the argument in the article is wrong, but you can't say it is unreasonable or radical.  It is a very reasonable argument, whether you agree with it or not.
 
Gene
 
Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2018 1:56 AM
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Uber Self-Driving Car Hits and Kills Pedestrian

The screen reader opposition was a good thing then? Look what it brought us. For years, until 2012-2013 or so, maybe later, blind people paid thousands of dollars, often more than the pc to access it. As for exits, the responsibility of the person sitting near it is to guide people to safety. A sighted person, who could see what was going on would do a much better job. As for gun ownership, you claim it is discrimination. Yet, you completely ignore the fact that the basics to operate a gun are, A: to see the target, and b: to safely fire it. A blind person cannot see the target, and is as likely as ever to hit someone else. In this situation, discrimination is warranted, as the blind person lacks the necesary competences to operate a gun by being blind. As for my statements, all of them are verifieable, and common knowledge in the blind community.
On 3/20/2018 9:49 AM, Gene wrote:
What are your sources?  I don't know about the Microsoft Windows 2000 statement but it sounds very inaccurate.  I've never heard of the NFB taking a position against Microsoft putting a screen-reader in Windows.  And if they did, it isn't necessarily a radical position.  I would argue, and this isn't a radical position, it's a standard antimonopoly position, that if Microsoft put a capable screen-reader, such as NVdA now is or JAWS isin Windows, that that will destroy every other Windows screen-reader.  for years, we constantly heard that Microsoft was a monopoly.  Interesting how so many people who object to Microsoft having been a monopoly before the market changed, argue for having Microsoft create a powerful screen-reader, thus making them a monopoly in the Windows market.  No more competition, no more having the option to use different screen-readers in cases where one doesn't function well.  You would have only one and if it didn't do something wwell, that's too bad. 
 
As far as I know, the NFB didn't fight against paper money becoming accessible.  They didn't fight for it but they didn't oppose it either.  I am not an assiduous student of the NFB but I remember public statements Federation members made representing the organization at the time to the media.  The essence was that instead of worrying about accessibility, we should worry about blind people having more money. 
 
While you can say that the Federation should have worked to make money accessible. they didn't take the absurd position you claim they did, as far as I know.
 
So you think that blind people are so helpless and incompetent that they shouldn't sit near emergency exits?  they could be shown how to open them before the flight took off.  And in some emergencies, blind people would be better able to deal with situations.  If a cabin fills with smoke, who would be more competent?  A sighted person who can't see or a blind person who can't see?  Do you remember the story of the blind person who led a group of sighted people out of one of the World Trade Center towers because the sighted people couldn't see?
 
My view is that the campaign to let blind people sit near emergency exits spent a lot of time and some money on an unimportant project.  It doesn't matter much either way.  That's a question of priorities and how seriously you take an issue like that.  but it's hardly a fanatical unreasonable position.  Either you believe that blind people are competent or that they aren't.  You can argue about priorities but if you believe that blind people are competent, the position itself is not illogical or unreasonable.
 
I don't know about your bearing arms statement.  If a blind person is not allowed to bear arms once some sort of training has been administered and competency has been established, that's discrimination, pure and simple. If you think gun ownership is far too common in the United States, that is your position on gun control.  It has nothing to do with this argument.  If sighted people are allowed by law, to carry guns and blind people aren't just because they are blind, that is discrimination.  Show me evidence that a blind person, with the proper training, can't shoot in self-defense and be reasonably effective.  Unless you can show me that this has been properly tested, you can't establish your case.  Most discrimination against blind people is the result of untested and faulty and unexamined assumptions.  I need sight to do this.  How can someone without sight do it?  That is the standard reasoning.  Folowing it leads to the helpless blind person conclusion. 
 
Yes, the Federation did create a resolution on Apple apps all being accessible.  That resolution makes no sense.  Some apps, because of their nature can't be accessible.  But as I said, no organization is immune from doing stupid or questionable things. 
 
You haven't proven your point.  and your implication that the Federation was colluding or had some sort of secret motive to help this or that sscreen-reader company is baseless.  I've already presented a perfectly logical case in support of not having a powerful screen-reader developed by Microsoft.  And I don't think there is anything to the accusation in the first place. 
 
You didn’t bring up what is the most stupid ans self-destructive position the Federation has taken, to my knowledge.  That is the position against making descriptive video mandatory on television broadcasts and to be added to films aned such distributions of films as DVDS.  As I said, no political organization is immune from stupidity. 
 
Gene 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2018 12:30 AM
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Uber Self-Driving Car Hits and Kills Pedestrian

The fact of the matter is, the NFB is indeed an extremist radical organization that does indeed take very stupid and ridiculous  positions. Examples: the nfb actually fought against paper money becoming accessible, convinced microsoft not to build a screenreader into win2k, and we know where that went, and who it benefited, claimed that blind people should be seated near emergency exits, and claimed that they outperformed sighted people, actually claimed that blind people should not be discriminated against in the race to bare arms, as if we don't have enough gun toting maniacs in the world, now we need blind gun toting maniacs. Furthermore, the NFB sent out a blanket statement to apple, asking all apps, regardless if they are visual in nature to be accessible. Are these examples enough?


On 3/20/2018 7:39 AM, Gene wrote:
I didn't say that and that has nothing to do with my point.  They have done some stupid things.  But show me a political organization that hasn't.  Plato's Republic doesn't exist.  The point is that there is a difference between your comments in your first message, which show a complete misunderstanding of the organization and what it has done and what it does, and accurate and meaningful criticism.  Your message implies that the Federation is an extremist fanatical organization that takes all sorts of ridiculous quixotic positions. 
 
Interesting that you didn't answer any of my questions about where you got your impression or putative "facts" about it. 
 
And your second message implies that they do mostly stupid things.  And no discussion of where you get your putative information to make such statements. 
 
And, though the Federation is certainly interested in promoting driverless cars, why single them out?  I haven't checked but I bet you can't show me one blindness advocacy organization in The United States that isn't in favor of them.  So why introduce gratuitous criticism or discussion of the Federation when the comments have nothing to do with the question under discussion and are just a criticism of the Federation, which has no bearing on the original question. 
 
The fact that the Federation has taken no such ridiculous position, nor does it take such positions on other issues, is prima facie evidence about your misinformed ideas about it. 
 
Gene
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2018 9:21 PM
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Uber Self-Driving Car Hits and Kills Pedestrian

and just because they might of done a few things that made the lives of blind people better, should be eternally grateful, and not criticise the stupid or downright silly things done by them?


On 3/20/2018 1:35 AM, Gene wrote:
It's refreshing to see your message making ridiculous caricatures of a group that has done a great deal to advance the well-being of the blind in The United States.  How much literature have you read from the organization?  How much are you forming your opinion on nothing but claims from people who don't like the organization? 
 
I'm not saying there are no grounds for criticism.  But your message demonstrates such a warped and inaccurate view of the organization and its history that the comments are not relevant.
 
A word of warning:
This is not a political discussion list.  A little discussion on this topic, if it remains civil, will be allowed.  But such discussions have a lot of potential to become devisive and I'll stop the thread if this one does.
 
Gene
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2018 4:32 PM
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Uber Self-Driving Car Hits and Kills Pedestrian

lets have the NFB organize protests on how using a self-driving car is a constitutional right for the blind, despite the fact that they might murder someone.


On 3/19/2018 11:09 PM, Gerald Levy wrote:
 
For those of you who can’t waint to buy a self-driving car, you may have a long waint.  Uber has suspended its self-driving vehicle program after one of its autonomous vehicles hit and killed a pedestrian in Arizona:
 
 
Gerald
 
 







Re: Samsung Gear S3 Question

Donna
 

My daughter makes & receives phone calls. Sends & receives text messages. Uses a calender to save important dates & listens to music.  And she has downloaded a few apps from the samsung store. The watch can be linked to an iPhone but apps from the Apple app store can not be downloaded to the watch.

Donna  

Thanks. What ddoes she do on it?

 

Debbie

 

From: main@TechTalk.groups.io <main@TechTalk.groups.io> On Behalf Of Donna
Sent: Tuesday, 20 March 2018 12:09 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Samsung Gear S3 Question

 

The Samsung gear S3 is fully accessible. My 12 year old received one for Xmas. I received the Samsung Iconic 2018 earpods & they are also accessible. 

 

Donna

 

Hi all

 

Has anyone used the Samsung Gear S3? If so, how accessible do you find it/

 

Thanks in advance

Debbie


Re: Uber Self-Driving Car Hits and Kills Pedestrian

Gene
 

The enormous number of things blind people can do that sighted people think they can't should give you pause in reaching such a conclusion.  It was self-evident that the world was flat, as well.  Aristotle built up an entire structure of science by basing it on self-evident principles such as that heavy objects fall more quickly than light ones.  Let the firearms proposition be properly tested.  This s a question of equality, not of gun control.  If you are going to deprive someone of a legally mandated right or privelege, it's self-evident isn't sufficient grounds in a wide variety of instances. 
 
Gene
----- Original Message -----

Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2018 5:16 AM
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Uber Self-Driving Car Hits and Kills Pedestrian

I personally believe, like many people, that owning and discharging a firearm, is one of those self-evident situations. In fact, I would go as far as to say it is the most extreme.


On 3/20/2018 11:25 AM, Gene wrote:
The logic is sound.  I don't advocate that a sighted person just shoot when they have no idea where their victim is and they may harm or kill someone else.  It's the same with a blind person.  I don't just advocate that a blind person shoot when they don't know where the target is and they may harm someone else.  You are setting up conditions where a blind person shouldn't do something and a sighted person can and using it as though there are no conditions where a blind person can. 
 
If you are going to say that a blind person doesn't have a right or a legally bestowed privelege, you need a better reason than an unsubstantiated statement that you need sighht to do something.  There are some cases where it's selfevident that a blind person can't do something.  but there is case after case where something self-evident to a sighted person is not correct.  A blind person can either do the thing fully or can do it under certain conditions.
 
Gene
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2018 3:02 AM
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Uber Self-Driving Car Hits and Kills Pedestrian

You are relying on the fact that a target will make noise, which cars do. You are using flawed logic. Cars make noise, and be relyed upon to do so. However, your target might not make noise at all,  and maybe completely silent. Also in comotion, you are much more likely to mix up a sound and shoot the wrong person than a sighted person is. A blind person should never be lisenced to use a gun under any circumstances.


On 3/20/2018 10:23 AM, Gene wrote:
You are assuming that a blind person can't shoot in self-defense if the person can hear the target.  How about this statement?  To cross a street, you need to see the cars and see the other side.  Your argument is the same.  Circular reasoning.  Just because a sighted person thinks sighte is needed to perform a task, doesn't make it so.  If it were actually true that sight were necessary to do a lot of the things sighted people assume it is necessary for, then blind people really would be helpless and incapable of doing much of anything. 
 
The solution to not having an affordable screen-reader is not to create a monopoly.  It is to either subsidize screen-readers to make them affordable, or, as has been done, to develop a screen-reader like NVDA.  A lot of blind people are much better off having choice in screen-readers and in having competition. 
 
I may check one or two.  I tried to check what I consider to be the NFB screen-reader myth before.  I found nothing.  Here is a brief opinion piece on blind people owning guns.  It proves my point.  What you call radical and unrealistic is belied by this person's experience.  This article is very reasonable.  it isn't shrill, it isn't angry, it isn't militant.  it quietly makes a very good argument.  And unless you can show me properly done tests that present strong evidence that a blind person can't learn to listen and aim well enough to be useful if necessary, then you haven't proven your case.  You can argue that the argument in the article is wrong, but you can't say it is unreasonable or radical.  It is a very reasonable argument, whether you agree with it or not.
 
Gene
 
Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2018 1:56 AM
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Uber Self-Driving Car Hits and Kills Pedestrian

The screen reader opposition was a good thing then? Look what it brought us. For years, until 2012-2013 or so, maybe later, blind people paid thousands of dollars, often more than the pc to access it. As for exits, the responsibility of the person sitting near it is to guide people to safety. A sighted person, who could see what was going on would do a much better job. As for gun ownership, you claim it is discrimination. Yet, you completely ignore the fact that the basics to operate a gun are, A: to see the target, and b: to safely fire it. A blind person cannot see the target, and is as likely as ever to hit someone else. In this situation, discrimination is warranted, as the blind person lacks the necesary competences to operate a gun by being blind. As for my statements, all of them are verifieable, and common knowledge in the blind community.
On 3/20/2018 9:49 AM, Gene wrote:
What are your sources?  I don't know about the Microsoft Windows 2000 statement but it sounds very inaccurate.  I've never heard of the NFB taking a position against Microsoft putting a screen-reader in Windows.  And if they did, it isn't necessarily a radical position.  I would argue, and this isn't a radical position, it's a standard antimonopoly position, that if Microsoft put a capable screen-reader, such as NVdA now is or JAWS isin Windows, that that will destroy every other Windows screen-reader.  for years, we constantly heard that Microsoft was a monopoly.  Interesting how so many people who object to Microsoft having been a monopoly before the market changed, argue for having Microsoft create a powerful screen-reader, thus making them a monopoly in the Windows market.  No more competition, no more having the option to use different screen-readers in cases where one doesn't function well.  You would have only one and if it didn't do something wwell, that's too bad. 
 
As far as I know, the NFB didn't fight against paper money becoming accessible.  They didn't fight for it but they didn't oppose it either.  I am not an assiduous student of the NFB but I remember public statements Federation members made representing the organization at the time to the media.  The essence was that instead of worrying about accessibility, we should worry about blind people having more money. 
 
While you can say that the Federation should have worked to make money accessible. they didn't take the absurd position you claim they did, as far as I know.
 
So you think that blind people are so helpless and incompetent that they shouldn't sit near emergency exits?  they could be shown how to open them before the flight took off.  And in some emergencies, blind people would be better able to deal with situations.  If a cabin fills with smoke, who would be more competent?  A sighted person who can't see or a blind person who can't see?  Do you remember the story of the blind person who led a group of sighted people out of one of the World Trade Center towers because the sighted people couldn't see?
 
My view is that the campaign to let blind people sit near emergency exits spent a lot of time and some money on an unimportant project.  It doesn't matter much either way.  That's a question of priorities and how seriously you take an issue like that.  but it's hardly a fanatical unreasonable position.  Either you believe that blind people are competent or that they aren't.  You can argue about priorities but if you believe that blind people are competent, the position itself is not illogical or unreasonable.
 
I don't know about your bearing arms statement.  If a blind person is not allowed to bear arms once some sort of training has been administered and competency has been established, that's discrimination, pure and simple. If you think gun ownership is far too common in the United States, that is your position on gun control.  It has nothing to do with this argument.  If sighted people are allowed by law, to carry guns and blind people aren't just because they are blind, that is discrimination.  Show me evidence that a blind person, with the proper training, can't shoot in self-defense and be reasonably effective.  Unless you can show me that this has been properly tested, you can't establish your case.  Most discrimination against blind people is the result of untested and faulty and unexamined assumptions.  I need sight to do this.  How can someone without sight do it?  That is the standard reasoning.  Folowing it leads to the helpless blind person conclusion. 
 
Yes, the Federation did create a resolution on Apple apps all being accessible.  That resolution makes no sense.  Some apps, because of their nature can't be accessible.  But as I said, no organization is immune from doing stupid or questionable things. 
 
You haven't proven your point.  and your implication that the Federation was colluding or had some sort of secret motive to help this or that sscreen-reader company is baseless.  I've already presented a perfectly logical case in support of not having a powerful screen-reader developed by Microsoft.  And I don't think there is anything to the accusation in the first place. 
 
You didn’t bring up what is the most stupid ans self-destructive position the Federation has taken, to my knowledge.  That is the position against making descriptive video mandatory on television broadcasts and to be added to films aned such distributions of films as DVDS.  As I said, no political organization is immune from stupidity. 
 
Gene 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2018 12:30 AM
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Uber Self-Driving Car Hits and Kills Pedestrian

The fact of the matter is, the NFB is indeed an extremist radical organization that does indeed take very stupid and ridiculous  positions. Examples: the nfb actually fought against paper money becoming accessible, convinced microsoft not to build a screenreader into win2k, and we know where that went, and who it benefited, claimed that blind people should be seated near emergency exits, and claimed that they outperformed sighted people, actually claimed that blind people should not be discriminated against in the race to bare arms, as if we don't have enough gun toting maniacs in the world, now we need blind gun toting maniacs. Furthermore, the NFB sent out a blanket statement to apple, asking all apps, regardless if they are visual in nature to be accessible. Are these examples enough?


On 3/20/2018 7:39 AM, Gene wrote:
I didn't say that and that has nothing to do with my point.  They have done some stupid things.  But show me a political organization that hasn't.  Plato's Republic doesn't exist.  The point is that there is a difference between your comments in your first message, which show a complete misunderstanding of the organization and what it has done and what it does, and accurate and meaningful criticism.  Your message implies that the Federation is an extremist fanatical organization that takes all sorts of ridiculous quixotic positions. 
 
Interesting that you didn't answer any of my questions about where you got your impression or putative "facts" about it. 
 
And your second message implies that they do mostly stupid things.  And no discussion of where you get your putative information to make such statements. 
 
And, though the Federation is certainly interested in promoting driverless cars, why single them out?  I haven't checked but I bet you can't show me one blindness advocacy organization in The United States that isn't in favor of them.  So why introduce gratuitous criticism or discussion of the Federation when the comments have nothing to do with the question under discussion and are just a criticism of the Federation, which has no bearing on the original question. 
 
The fact that the Federation has taken no such ridiculous position, nor does it take such positions on other issues, is prima facie evidence about your misinformed ideas about it. 
 
Gene
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2018 9:21 PM
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Uber Self-Driving Car Hits and Kills Pedestrian

and just because they might of done a few things that made the lives of blind people better, should be eternally grateful, and not criticise the stupid or downright silly things done by them?


On 3/20/2018 1:35 AM, Gene wrote:
It's refreshing to see your message making ridiculous caricatures of a group that has done a great deal to advance the well-being of the blind in The United States.  How much literature have you read from the organization?  How much are you forming your opinion on nothing but claims from people who don't like the organization? 
 
I'm not saying there are no grounds for criticism.  But your message demonstrates such a warped and inaccurate view of the organization and its history that the comments are not relevant.
 
A word of warning:
This is not a political discussion list.  A little discussion on this topic, if it remains civil, will be allowed.  But such discussions have a lot of potential to become devisive and I'll stop the thread if this one does.
 
Gene
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2018 4:32 PM
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Uber Self-Driving Car Hits and Kills Pedestrian

lets have the NFB organize protests on how using a self-driving car is a constitutional right for the blind, despite the fact that they might murder someone.


On 3/19/2018 11:09 PM, Gerald Levy wrote:
 
For those of you who can’t waint to buy a self-driving car, you may have a long waint.  Uber has suspended its self-driving vehicle program after one of its autonomous vehicles hit and killed a pedestrian in Arizona:
 
 
Gerald
 
 







Re: Uber Self-Driving Car Hits and Kills Pedestrian

Jaffar Sidek
 

Anyway, what makes human driven cars any safer?  Add in such human depravities as Drink driving, wrecklessness, hit and run incidences, and you find that self-driven cars could be in fact, much more safe since computers are incapable of sinking into inhuman levels.  I've travelled on airplanes that are put on auto pilot to allow the human pilots needed rest, And I'm still around to tell the tale, as I suspect, some of you are too.  Cheers!

On 3/20/2018 9:35 PM, Mike Thomas wrote:
News reports this morning on the accident, claim the woman was crossing the
street illegally by not crossing at a crosswalk.  Autonomous cars cannot
predict and may not be ready for irradic human behavior.  This car also had
a human  backup.  Where was his interaction?  I continue to be in favor of
the technology.  Undoubtedly those human indiscretions will attempt to be
taken into consideration by the vehicles, but not all situations can be
prevented.  Had that have been a small child that didn't clear the hood of
the parked cars, human drivers as well as autonomous cars could not have
prevented the tragedy.  If you consider the miles driven by autonomous cars
without an accident, I'm sure the safety factor is far ahead of cars with
human operators applying makeup, reading the headlines of a news story,
talking or sending a cell phone text, etc.  I'll much easier entrust my
safety to the technology of today above that of a distracted public.
Mike
----- Original Message -----
From: "Carolyn Arnold" <4carolyna@windstream.net>
To: <main@TechTalk.groups.io>
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2018 8:13 PM
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Uber Self-Driving Car Hits and Kills Pedestrian


It is interesting about young people. My granddaughter finally got her
learner's permit; she'll be 17 in July. Used to, people would be at the DMV
when the door opened on their 16th birthday.

As for self-driving cars, we've had the technology in subway trains and
trains at the air terminals for years, and it works just fine.

I'm not saying that if they come out, I want to get one or if they are
available how soon I'd want to try, might rather have Uber (which probably
would be self driven at that point) but not my responsibility for a way long
time to come. By then, I'd be pretty old, as some of you know I already have
a good start in that direction.

Love more than you're loved, give more than you're given, appreciate the
small things,

Carolyn

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On Behalf Of
Gene
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2018 6:42 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Uber Self-Driving Car Hits and Kills Pedestrian

Further on this topic, there is a great deal of interest among businesses in
self-driving technology.  Delivery services such as UPS want to use it,
large pizza delivery companies want to use it.  Drivers are a very large
expense.  Uber and other companies want to use it for the same reason.

Many people, as individual drivers, may not want to for a time. but when
time goes by and if the technology is safe, or as safe as can reasonably be
expected, nothing is completely safe, they will see how much time they are
losing that they could be using for activities they want to do. Young
people are less interested in driving than earlier generations. They want
to use their time in other ways.

Gene

----- Original Message -----
For those of you who can’t waint to buy a self-driving car, you may have a
long waint.  Uber has suspended its self-driving vehicle program after one
of its autonomous vehicles hit and killed a pedestrian in Arizona:

https://arstechnica.com/cars/2018/03/uber-self-driving-car-hits-and-kills-pedestrian/

Gerald











Re: NFB philosophy

Ann Parsons
 

Hi all,

APS's are Assistive Pedestrian Signals.

Ann P.

--
Ann K. Parsons
Portal Tutoring
EMAIL: akp@sero.email
Author of The Demmies: http://www.dldbooks.com/annparsons/
Portal Tutoring web site: http://www.portaltutoring.info
Skype: Putertutor

"All that is gold does not glitter,
Not all those who wander are lost."


Re: NFB philosophy

Loy <loyrg2845@...>
 

What are APS"s?
 


a google app that might interest Android users

Jaffar Sidek
 

Hi.  I got this while exploring Google.  Those of you who are Android users might want to give this a try.  Notes below. Cheers!

Textifi is an augmented reality app specially designed for blinds and visually impaired. It can read text from any surface by just keep the mobile in front of  the text. It can read the books, TV and laptop screens, expiry dates and ingredients, and also the hand written text. textifi will give the audio feedback in accessibility mode. it will be helpful in breaking barriers for old age persons to narrate the text. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=textifi.virtualeye.io


NFB philosophy

Ann Parsons
 

Hi all,

It is true that in the past, NFB had policies which disparaged guide dogs, was against APS's, and may have been against screen readers in Windows. That doesn't mean that this policy hasn't changed.

I find their top-down authoritarian policies similar to those of ADAPT which is the equivalent of The Black Panther movement among people with disabilities.

I am sure that there are power hungry people in the NFB as there are in any organization.

I find some of their services good, and some of the help they give to newly blind individuals good as well. It's a difference in philosophy.

Ann P.

--
Ann K. Parsons
Portal Tutoring
EMAIL: akp@sero.email
Author of The Demmies: http://www.dldbooks.com/annparsons/
Portal Tutoring web site: http://www.portaltutoring.info
Skype: Putertutor

"All that is gold does not glitter,
Not all those who wander are lost."


Re: firefox using alot of ram while watching youtube videos

Jaffar Sidek
 

If you are running a 64bit machine, then try Waterfox.  Do a search for it on google.  Cheers!

On 3/20/2018 3:29 PM, Eleni Vamvakari wrote:
I would like to know this as well! Firefox seems to slow down my
machines in general, including my X61 at times! I would like to
either find a sollution to this or to find an accessible alternative
to Firefox.

On 20/03/2018, enes sarıbaş <enes.saribas@gmail.com> wrote:
hi,

When I watch videos on youtube, firefox uses around 600-1000 mb of ram,
and uses alot of my cpu. In fact, sometimes, it easily uses up 2-3 gb of
ram. Is there a way to lower or prevent this?





Re: Uber Self-Driving Car Hits and Kills Pedestrian

Mike Thomas
 

News reports this morning on the accident, claim the woman was crossing the
street illegally by not crossing at a crosswalk. Autonomous cars cannot
predict and may not be ready for irradic human behavior. This car also had
a human backup. Where was his interaction? I continue to be in favor of
the technology. Undoubtedly those human indiscretions will attempt to be
taken into consideration by the vehicles, but not all situations can be
prevented. Had that have been a small child that didn't clear the hood of
the parked cars, human drivers as well as autonomous cars could not have
prevented the tragedy. If you consider the miles driven by autonomous cars
without an accident, I'm sure the safety factor is far ahead of cars with
human operators applying makeup, reading the headlines of a news story,
talking or sending a cell phone text, etc. I'll much easier entrust my
safety to the technology of today above that of a distracted public.
Mike

----- Original Message -----
From: "Carolyn Arnold" <4carolyna@windstream.net>
To: <main@TechTalk.groups.io>
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2018 8:13 PM
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Uber Self-Driving Car Hits and Kills Pedestrian


It is interesting about young people. My granddaughter finally got her
learner's permit; she'll be 17 in July. Used to, people would be at the DMV
when the door opened on their 16th birthday.

As for self-driving cars, we've had the technology in subway trains and
trains at the air terminals for years, and it works just fine.

I'm not saying that if they come out, I want to get one or if they are
available how soon I'd want to try, might rather have Uber (which probably
would be self driven at that point) but not my responsibility for a way long
time to come. By then, I'd be pretty old, as some of you know I already have
a good start in that direction.

Love more than you're loved, give more than you're given, appreciate the
small things,

Carolyn

-----Original Message-----
From: main@TechTalk.groups.io [mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io] On Behalf Of
Gene
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2018 6:42 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Uber Self-Driving Car Hits and Kills Pedestrian

Further on this topic, there is a great deal of interest among businesses in
self-driving technology. Delivery services such as UPS want to use it,
large pizza delivery companies want to use it. Drivers are a very large
expense. Uber and other companies want to use it for the same reason.

Many people, as individual drivers, may not want to for a time. but when
time goes by and if the technology is safe, or as safe as can reasonably be
expected, nothing is completely safe, they will see how much time they are
losing that they could be using for activities they want to do. Young
people are less interested in driving than earlier generations. They want
to use their time in other ways.

Gene

----- Original Message -----
For those of you who can’t waint to buy a self-driving car, you may have a
long waint. Uber has suspended its self-driving vehicle program after one
of its autonomous vehicles hit and killed a pedestrian in Arizona:

https://arstechnica.com/cars/2018/03/uber-self-driving-car-hits-and-kills-pedestrian/

Gerald


Re: An email question

Ann Parsons
 

Hi all,

Kay, if you don't want the messages, and you don't want the account any more, let the ISP deal with it. That's their job. Call them up, explain the situation and forget it. It's probably been taking money off some credit card somewhere too. Close it.


Ann P.

Original message:

No, I don't really care about these messages. I just need to get rid of
them. I'm thinking the only way to do this is going to be to get on the
email page and delete them, because doing this from OE is not working. Buy
the way Gene, you made the same mistake I did. In the read tab where it
says 300, if you look at it with the Jaws or mouse cursor it says how many
headers to download and not messages. One of those things that the screen
reader doesn't read clearly.
Kay Malmquist
kay.malmquist@gmail.com
KINDNESS
Kindness in words creates confidence.
Kindness in thinking creates profoundness.
Kindness in giving creates love.
-- Lao-Tzu
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ann Parsons" <akp@sero.email>
To: <main@TechTalk.groups.io>
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2018 3:08 PM
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] An email question

Hi all,
OK, Kay, do you want to read through all nine thousand messages in
preparation for using the account for something else, or are you
thinking that it is your responsibility to clean out the account?
You may find email from friends or distant family in the first five
hundred emails, but most of it will probably be junk. Anyone who knew
your husband and is close to you probably knows that he's passed.
Gene is right. I should have thought this through more carefully. If
you want to use his old account, then, manually downloading and
deleting these messages individually may be something you want to do.
However, if you are worried about this, thinking that it is your
responsibility, forget it. It isn't. the people at the ISP, assuming
that they are semi-conscious and marginally competent, will know how to
close out the account. They will just delete everything whole sale.
'sup to you.
Ann P.
Original message:
You are making two unsupported assumptions. You are assuming that
people haven't read the message carefully. You are also assuming that
the person wants to get rid of the account and has no interest in
following it. The person specifically asked how to download the
messages. You are assuming that the person wants to get rid of them in
preparation to getting rid of the account. If that were the case, why
doesn't the person just close the account or simply ignore it? the far
more reasonable assumption or working premise, which you can verify by
asking, is that the person wants to download these messages so that
they can be gotten rid of and that then, the person wants to follow new
messages that come to the account, at least for a time.
Gene
----- Original Message -----
From: Ann Parsons <mailto:akp@sero.email>
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2018 2:45 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io <mailto:main@TechTalk.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] An email question
Hi folks,
This is the kind of discussion that happens when people do not read
carefully. First of all, it's not her account. Second of all, it is
her deceased husband's email account which was never purged by his ESP.
This is not her problem except that she may have forgotten, in the
flurry of all the paperwork, six years ago to notify his ISP that he
had passed away. If she did notify them, then it is *not* her problem.
It is *their* problem. This wasn't frontier was it? Some of these
ISP's are so big and so disorganized that this kind of thing happens
routinely. None of their so-called sys-admin personnel really know
what they're doing.
I repeat, it is now *their* problem, not yours. You shouldn't have to
deal with nine thousand junk emails. That's ridiculous. Call them up
and if the drone on the phone won't give you any satisfaction keep
demanding a supervisor till they clean up their act. You may have to
send them a copy of the death certificate, but you probably have a copy
or two left. I repeat, you shouldn't have to deal with six years of
junk mail which the incompetent sys-admins have allowed to accumulate.
That's one of the very worst things about the grieving process in our
society. You can't just grieve in peace. There's a mountain of
paperwork that must be attended to right after the funeral. There's
tons and tons of it, and if you're blind, you have to have help to get
through it. It's a royal pain!
Ann P.
--
Ann K. Parsons
Portal Tutoring
EMAIL: akp@sero.email <mailto:akp@sero.email>
Author of The Demmies: http://www.dldbooks.com/annparsons/
<http://www.dldbooks.com/annparsons/>
Portal Tutoring web site: http://www.portaltutoring.info
<http://www.portaltutoring.info>
Skype: Putertutor
"All that is gold does not glitter,
Not all those who wander are lost."




--
Ann K. Parsons
Portal Tutoring
EMAIL: akp@sero.email
Author of The Demmies: http://www.dldbooks.com/annparsons/
Portal Tutoring web site: http://www.portaltutoring.info
Skype: Putertutor
"All that is gold does not glitter,
Not all those who wander are lost."




--
Ann K. Parsons
Portal Tutoring
EMAIL: akp@sero.email
Author of The Demmies: http://www.dldbooks.com/annparsons/
Portal Tutoring web site: http://www.portaltutoring.info
Skype: Putertutor

"All that is gold does not glitter,
Not all those who wander are lost."


Re: Uber Self-Driving Car Hits and Kills Pedestrian

john s
 

Here we go, another unsubstantiated fact.  Can you prove that the ACG is more progressive than the NFB?


At 08:08 AM 3/20/2018, Gerald Levy, wrote:
 
Ian, you are right on to ccriticize the NFB.  We just had a discussion about their philosophy on another list, and a few former members commented that they were indeed extreme and intolerant.  One former member even compared its late, revered president, Dr. Kenneth Jernigan, to Joseph Stalin because of his dictatorial leadership style and unwillingness to accept criticism from members who disagreed with his views.  Indeed, the NFB’s extremist philosophy is the main reason why a contingent of members broke away years ago and formed the more progressive ACB.  The fact that NFB membership has been steadily declining attests to its unpopularity with the vast majority of blind citizens in this country.
 
Gerald
 
 
 
From: enes sarıbaş
Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2018 1:30 AM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Uber Self-Driving Car Hits and Kills Pedestrian
 

The fact of the matter is, the NFB is indeed an extremist radical organization that does indeed take very stupid and ridiculous  positions. Examples: the nfb actually fought against paper money becoming accessible, convinced microsoft not to build a screenreader into win2k, and we know where that went, and who it benefited, claimed that blind people should be seated near emergency exits, and claimed that they outperformed sighted people, actually claimed that blind people should not be discriminated against in the race to bare arms, as if we don't have enough gun toting maniacs in the world, now we need blind gun toting maniacs. Furthermore, the NFB sent out a blanket statement to apple, asking all apps, regardless if they are visual in nature to be accessible. Are these examples enough?

On 3/20/2018 7:39 AM, Gene wrote:
I didn't say that and that has nothing to do with my point.  They have done some stupid things.  But show me a political organization that hasn't.  Plato's Republic doesn't exist.  The point is that there is a difference between your comments in your first message, which show a complete misunderstanding of the organization and what it has done and what it does, and accurate and meaningful criticism.  Your message implies that the Federation is an extremist fanatical organization that takes all sorts of ridiculous quixotic positions. 
 
Interesting that you didn't answer any of my questions about where you got your impression or putative "facts" about it. 
 
And your second message implies that they do mostly stupid things.  And no discussion of where you get your putative information to make such statements. 
 
And, though the Federation is certainly interested in promoting driverless cars, why single them out?  I haven't checked but I bet you can't show me one blindness advocacy organization in The United States that isn't in favor of them.  So why introduce gratuitous criticism or discussion of the Federation when the comments have nothing to do with the question under discussion and are just a criticism of the Federation, which has no bearing on the original question. 
 
The fact that the Federation has taken no such ridiculous position, nor does it take such positions on other issues, is prima facie evidence about your misinformed ideas about it.
 
Gene
----- Original Message -----
From: enes sarıbaş
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2018 9:21 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Uber Self-Driving Car Hits and Kills Pedestrian
 

and just because they might of done a few things that made the lives of blind people better, should be eternally grateful, and not criticise the stupid or downright silly things done by them?

On 3/20/2018 1:35 AM, Gene wrote:
It's refreshing to see your message making ridiculous caricatures of a group that has done a great deal to advance the well-being of the blind in The United States.  How much literature have you read from the organization?  How much are you forming your opinion on nothing but claims from people who don't like the organization? 
 
I'm not saying there are no grounds for criticism.  But your message demonstrates such a warped and inaccurate view of the organization and its history that the comments are not relevant.
 
A word of warning:
This is not a political discussion list.  A little discussion on this topic, if it remains civil, will be allowed.  But such discussions have a lot of potential to become devisive and I'll stop the thread if this one does.
 
Gene
----- Original Message -----
From: enes sarıbaş
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2018 4:32 PM
To: main@TechTalk.groups.io
Subject: Re: [TechTalk] Uber Self-Driving Car Hits and Kills Pedestrian
 

lets have the NFB organize protests on how using a self-driving car is a constitutional right for the blind, despite the fact that they might murder someone.

On 3/19/2018 11:09 PM, Gerald Levy wrote:
 
For those of you who can’t waint to buy a self-driving car, you may have a long waint.  Uber has suspended its self-driving vehicle program after one of its autonomous vehicles hit and killed a pedestrian in Arizona:
 
https://arstechnica.com/cars/2018/03/uber-self-driving-car-hits-and-kills-pedestrian/
 
Gerald
 
 

                 John

36641 - 36660 of 104006