[nfb-talk] Cash

[David Andrews]

John:

You ask questions, but I don't think you are hearing anything we are 
saying.  To you, we are crazy, and it doesn't make sense.  We can't 
change that mind set.

As to cost, Personally I have no problem with the government having 
to pay for any change in the currency.  However, it won't stop 
there.  Depending on what changes are made, many businesses, banks, 
casinos, vending companies, and on and on are going to have to make 
changes to their equipment, storage etc.  I would guess that there is 
a whole infrastructure out there for handling, sorting, counting, 
storing, distributing and otherwise dealing with paper money.  If 
this has to be changed, ghe government won't pay for most of 
it.  This is how it is different from curb cuts.  Businesses, 
corporations and the like will have to pay for these changes.  The 
very businesses and companies who we would want to hire blind 
people.  Do you think spending their money on something which may or 
may not be necessary is going to kindly dispose them towards blind 
persons.  I don't think so.

The pro change people choose to totally ignore that their could be a 
back lash on this.

Dave

At 07:37 AM 12/14/2006, you wrote:
>How much money do you think it cost to put curb cuts on every street corner
>in the country? How much money do you think it cost to put wheelchair
>accessible bathrooms in every new building and to add them to existing
>buildings whenever they are remodelled?
>
>If the government doesn't have to spend the money to make bills different
>sizes, they're not going to devote that money to making sure every blind
>person has a job. That's just not how it works.
>
>The correct response to the judge's decision to make the government change
>the bills is "This is great. But it's not enough. Not nearly enough."
>
>Instead of standing in the way, the NFB should be pushing for more!
>
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Steve Jacobson" <steve.jacobson at visi.com>
>To: "NFB Talk Mailing List" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
>Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 9:03 PM
>Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] Cash
>
>
> > John,
> >
> > If one takes the view that I hold, that we must evaluate the need and the
> > priority of requests we make of society, then it
> > becomes somewhat of a judgment call as to which issues we pursue.  In my
> > mind, the Target case is part of a general
> > effirt to make the web as accessible to blind people as possible.  This
> > effort includes legal action, awareness
> > campaigns, and more often than not, working cooperatively with web
> > designers.  Taking just one small example of web
> > access, my life has been impacted much more just by buying groceries on
> > line than I perceive it would be impacted by
> > identifiable money.  Loosing the access to the web that we have enjoyed
> > would have a negative impact, but
> > broadening access over the coming years as more blind people use computers
> > will have a substantial positive impact.
> > In other words, in my mind, the efforts of which the Target case is a
> > small part is having and will have a far greater
> > impact on our everyday lives than will identifiable money.
> >
> > Ideally, we should have a screen reader that can handle difficulties with
> > web sites, and maybe that kind of technology
> > will be available at some point.  We have discussed that very subject as
> > part of our R&D Committee meetings.
> > However, such a screen reader seems a long way off, and some speculate
> > that a screen reader that can truly interpret
> > as well as read a screen without depending upon operating system hooks may
> > never be possible.  Whatever the future
> > holds along those lines, a screen reader that can handle any internet page
> > is much further off than money identifiers
> > which are already here.
> >
> > On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 12:22:46 -0600, John Heim wrote:
> >
> >>Can someone please explain an apparent contradiction in NFB policies to
> >>me?
> >
> >>The NFB says that making the government change bills so that blind people
> >>can tell them apart implies that "the blind are not capable of looking out
> >>for our own best interests and that the whole world must be modified for
> >>our
> >>protection."
> >
> >>Doesn't the suit against Target do the same thing? Doesn't it imply that
> >>the
> >>worl must be modified for us? If the NFB is to be consistent, shouldn't
> >>they
> >>be working on a screen reader that will work with the Target site rather
> >>than trying to make Target change their site?
> >
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>nfb-talk mailing list
> >>nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
> >>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > nfb-talk mailing list
> > nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
> > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk
> >
> >
>
>_______________________________________________
>nfb-talk mailing list
>nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk