Federation For The Blind

The authors guild wants to take away the text-to-speech function on the Kindle 2 and make it so that the blind have to either pay extra to read books like everyone else or be forced through some registration process... But then why don't parents have to go through a registration process before it's legal for them to read books out loud to their children... What do you think?

http://i.gizmodo.com/5202554/photos-and- video-from-the-national-federation-of-th e-blinds-kindle-2-protest

Wow, that is beyond obnoxious (the Author's Guild, not the NF of the Blind's protest of their actions).

So, based on their 'logic' (I use the term QUITE loosely) any technology that mechanically reads text should not be allowed? I'm sure there already is technology like that, just not as convenient as a built-in system to allow automatic access.

And yes, an automatic text-to-speech function will cut into audiobook sales for people who don't care about sound quality...in exactly the same way as photocopying a book in the library cuts into the book sales for people who don't care about visual quality. There is still a quality difference between the two that most people care about...I, for one, hate mechanical sounding voices. I'm more likely to shell out the dough for a good audiobook rather than accept a free low-quality version...as long as the price for the audiobook is reasonable. The members of the Author's Guild should take a long look at what value they are offering for the prices they are charging and consider how they can best make use of the markets that are there.

It's like the record companies. At the beginning of the transition to music files on computers, they had an opportunity to sell directly to customers, which they refused. Instead, they kicked and screamed and said that no one should ever dare use their songs in a way other than they intended. Well, progress doesn't stop and people find a way to get what they want. Instead of trying to stand in their way, the Author's Guild should be trying to reach out and serve these needs in an innovative way.

2009-04-07 18:55:36 by i_come_from_under_the_hill

The National Federation of The Blind came into existence in the year 1970 with the philosophy "Let the Blind Lead the Blind". The ...

So, the NFB is saying that the movie "Blindness" is offensive because it makes blind people look depraved and crazy, and that blind people can do many of the same things that sighted people do.

Now, this would be true if it weren't for the fact that, in the movie, all the blind people are NEWLY blind, and it happens to HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE AT ONCE. Obviously, if this were to happen, I'm sure everyone would be freaking out! Its not about people who have been blind for years or all their life.

What are your thoughts?

I don't know how they can judge the movie without having seen it first.


...

*crickets chirping*

2008-10-03 15:49:26 by **[Witty_Name]**

Price: $12.00 $83.42

Do they suppose the Federation for the Blind has erred by not breeding "Pitt Bulls" for Service Dogs? Do you suppose dogs might have inherited charecteristics and this is why certain breeds are proferred?
For Joa5, Your fired!
Also the question is asked because so many people think Pit Bulls are "no different" that it's all in how they are raised, sorry to tell you, this is not so! They were bred to intimidate, dominate and kill, they are aggresive by nature, they WERE bred to be, Dogs, didn't just "happen" we bred inherent traits into them to serve our purposes. Lab Pit Bull crosses are not "good" childrens pets.

Pit bulls were bred for one and only one purpose, to fight other dogs in dog fighting pits, hence the name. They are unsociable, intollerant of other dogs and are loyal to generally only one person even in a family environment.

They were not chosen for service dogs because they would be 100% unsuitable for the task.

In Australia we are lucky, many states have now banned the breeding of and importing of pit bulls, which is as it should be.

2007-01-26 21:26:28 by Faerie loue

During this year's elections, they had Tina Fey doing skits of Sarah Palin that most people accepted as fact. For example,"I can see Russia from my house." Conservatives took it as a joke, that's what it was. Now they joke about a blind man and the "politically correct" crowd starts whining.

(AP) The National Federation of the Blind says it considers NBC's "Saturday Night Live" skit making fun of New York Gov. David Paterson an attack on all blind Americans.

Federation spokesman Chris Danielsen says the portrayal on Saturday's television show suggesting Paterson as befuddled and disoriented because of his blindness is "absolutely wrong."

How serious do you take SNL?

The very old SNL, where John Belushi was the Samurai sword guy, and Bill Murray and Gilda played nerds, and Gilda played the girl scout, etc etc. Those were hysterical. Making so much fun of just one person, is not humorous. Bringing up Bill Clintons infidelities, Stumbling President Ford, Making George Bush look dumb, is not funny at all. I refuse to watch that show because it lacks taste. Bring back Mr Robinson's neighborhood, Wayne's World, Father Guido Sarduicci, The Church Lady, leave our Presidents alone. It is disrespectful.

2008-12-15 14:52:38 by alleycat69

This will be for a St. Patrick's day parade. It is being put on by the National Federation of the Blind. They are promoting a benefit concert featuring the country band Heartland. Please Help! We need creative ideas. Photos would be great too.

Uh oh, will they (the National Federation of the Blind) be able to see the float?

2007-02-15 12:36:08 by wooliebear07