Hi Eric, This is a sound idea as it places weight on the board. Have you made some general calculations on the number of blind/visually impaired individuals potentially capable of buying 10 amazon shares at 260 USD current?Far as i know, there are 45 million blind and visually impaired individuals around the world. Most of them in developing countries. Breaking it down to say, Australia, there are about 500000 so far, of them i would be interested to know who fulfills the criterias of age and financial capability. Or, some of the organizations themselves, from the donations they get, could actually buy shares of various entities to get their message across.
There are complications and obstacles, but this is a very cool idea. Best regards, Yuma "Light has no value without darkness" On 11/08/2013, at 12:13 PM, Sean Murphy <mhysnm1...@gmail.com> wrote: > Eric, > > I like your concept and is something that I have promoted with other people. > Not necessarily in the same method. > > Government laws and education only goes so far. Money speaks far louder for > public companies. > > So Eric, drop me a note off line so we can compare notes. > > Sean > On 09/08/2013, at 7:55 AM, eric oyen <eric.o...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> well, there is one thing we can do to force the issue: everyone who is blind >> should buy up 10 shares of amazon stock and then assign it to a trusted >> proxy as a single voting block. If enough shares are allocated this way, the >> board of directors will have no choice but to listen. Its an idea I have >> suggested before, but it seems no one wants to do this, even when I know the >> method will work. This seems to be the one problem our community has: we >> can't seem to act in a unified fashion (I.E. the NFB v. the ACB, etc.). This >> needs to change or we will be stuck and marginalized. >> >> -eric >> >> On Aug 8, 2013, at 8:26 AM, Chris Blouch wrote: >> >>> I'm always torn in the discussions of regulating accessibility. On the one >>> side the lack of regulation means slacker companies will continue doing >>> what they have been while companies who care will continue doing a good >>> job. Once a law requiring accessibility hits a particular product the >>> discussion usually turns to discerning the minimum that can be done to pass >>> the bad smell test for the regulations (and avoid the fines). In other >>> words, compliance does not equal accessibility. It's the age old choice >>> between enlist or comply. If you enlist in the ideals I'm trying to >>> persuade you about you're more likely to do a good job and not need much >>> else to motivate your work. If you are complying then you're just trying to >>> avoid getting hit by my stick and will do the minimum possible to stay >>> beyond its reach. The former is the hope but the latter is CVAA and other >>> regulations. It's unfortunate that companies have not figured out that by >>> not doing accessibility when they had a choice means everybody is lessened >>> when the choices are gone. Companies now have to prove compliance and add a >>> lot of cost to the process and consumers get stuff that has the minimum >>> accessibility slapped together to pass whatever tests are being used. A >>> rather sad state. >>> >>> CB >>> >>> On 8/8/13 10:08 AM, Mike Arrigo wrote: >>>> There are other choices. The newest versions of android are just as >>>> accessible, and these are made by several manufacturers. >>>> Original message: >>>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>>> I really have to agree with Eric, here. In response to Barry, what Apple >>>>> did with the iPhone 3Gs was to make a main-stream device accessible to >>>>> us. And yes, that still has the potential to level the playing field . >>>>> But the playing field is hardly level if Apple is the only company doing >>>>> this, if for no other reason than what that means is that blind consumers >>>>> would only have one choice. I agree with Bary. I love my Apple products >>>>> and have absolutely no interest in personally owning a Kindle. But I work >>>>> with lots of students who do have them. Kindle does a lot more in >>>>> textbooks than other e-text providers, which means that people will want >>>>> to buy these devices for school. Isn't it reasonable to strive to have >>>>> the same level of choice in our mobile technology as our sighted peers? >>>>> Sandy is right, there's a big gap between the ideal and the current >>>>> reality, but that's a big reason why I think it's worth doing everything >>>>> we can to stop Amazon from getting this waiver. Barry may be correct, and >>>>> that all our comments may be for naught. However, the only way we'll know >>>>> is to try. >>>>> Best, >>>>> Donna >>>>> On Aug 8, 2013, at 5:01 AM, eric oyen <eric.o...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>> and what is wrong with that? the powers that be try every way to keep us >>>>>> penned up, but I do not accept that. We have the right to be able to >>>>>> live the same as others (at least here in the U.S.). So, why should we >>>>>> accept anything less? >>>> >>>>>> -eric >>>> >>>>>> On Aug 7, 2013, at 2:16 PM, Barry Hadder wrote: >>>> >>>>>>> I recall a time not so long ago when i devices first became accessible, >>>>>>> everyone thinking how that was going to level the playing field. It’s >>>>>>> funny how quickly perspectives change. >>>> >>>>>>> Now the bar has been raised even higher. The playing field will not be >>>>>>> level until blind people have access to every cheep piece of crap in >>>>>>> existence. >>>>>>> I should say that I’m happy with what Apple does and I have no desire >>>>>>> to use anything else. That said however, I certainly think that it >>>>>>> would be a very good think if other companies would realize the >>>>>>> importance of opening their products up to other segments of society >>>>>>> and not excluding them. I just don’t think that this is going to >>>>>>> convince them. >>>> >>>>>>> I don’t want to completely let Apple off the hook as it seems to me at >>>>>>> times that there are factions under their roof that don’t seem to >>>>>>> understand the importance of accessibility or what Voiceover is even >>>>>>> used for. On the other hand, I think that there is a much larger >>>>>>> faction at Apple that definitely gets it and that the evidence to >>>>>>> support this is over whelming. I realize that not every body can listen >>>>>>> to them, but there were some very impressive sessions at WWDC on the >>>>>>> importance of accessibility and how easy it really is to not only make >>>>>>> an app usable to a blind person, but make it a nice experience to use. >>>> >>>>>>> I would like to suggest, that just maybe, if a government agency needs >>>>>>> to step in to private inderestry and dictate to a company how their >>>>>>> product is required to function, the result probably won’t be something >>>>>>> you are going to want to use. >>>> >>>>>>> I think that we as a blind community have access to more information >>>>>>> then at any other time in history. And, while things can always be >>>>>>> better, maybe some gratitude is in order for the really good things >>>>>>> that some companies like Apple have done. >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> On Aug 7, 2013, at 12:36 PM, Richard Ring <richr...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>>>> And, let's face it! Not all blind people can afford i devices, nor >>>>>>>> should they have to! Having a relatively inexpensive Ereader would >>>>>>>> really help to level the playing field! >>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> You can have an off day, but you can't have a day off! ---The Art of >>>>>>>> Fielding >>>>>>>> Sent from my Mac Book Pro >>>>>>>> richr...@gmail.com >>>> >>>>>>>> On Aug 7, 2013, at 12:21 PM, Eugenia Firth <gigifi...@me.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi there >>>>>>>>> Yes, and we all know which "disability" they are talking about, and >>>>>>>>> it's not the disabled they are talking about either. They are talking >>>>>>>>> about the blind, but of course, they didn't say so. They might as >>>>>>>>> well have. After all, most of the other disabilities can read the >>>>>>>>> print. When I heard about this law, I had a feeling this kind of >>>>>>>>> thing was going to start with the "we can't" people. >>>> >>>>>>>>> Hey, I guess you guys noticed how they want to solve the >>>>>>>>> accessibility problem, right! They want to let Apple carrying them >>>>>>>>> along by saying we can all use iPads etc.! >>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>> Gigi >>>> >>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>> Gigi >>>> >>>>>>>>> On Aug 7, 2013, at 10:02 AM, Mike Arrigo <n0...@charter.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>>>>>>> I can't believe the FCC would even consider that. They should say, >>>>>>>>>> absolutely not. These devices must be made accessible, end of story. >>>>>>>>>> Original message: >>>>>>>>>>> Hello all: >>>> >>>>>>>>>>> In follow-up to Karen's post last night, I am posting information >>>>>>>>>>> regarding FCC's request for comments on this issue. I hope that >>>>>>>>>>> many of you will take the time to comment. >>>>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>>>> Donna >>>>>>>>>>> Request for Comment on Petition for Class Waiver of Accessibility >>>>>>>>>>> Rules for ACS >>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On August 1, 2013, the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) >>>>>>>>>>> released a Public Notice requesting comment on a petition filed by >>>>>>>>>>> the Coalition of E-Reader Manufacturers. The Coalition requests >>>>>>>>>>> that the Commission waive its rules requiring equipment used for >>>>>>>>>>> advanced communications services (ACS) to be accessible by people >>>>>>>>>>> with disabilities. The Coalition states that, although e-readers >>>>>>>>>>> are equipment that consumers can use for ACS, they are designed >>>>>>>>>>> primarily for reading. >>>> >>>>>>>>>>> To distinguish e-readers from tablets and other devices that would >>>>>>>>>>> not be subject to the waiver request, the Coalition requests a >>>>>>>>>>> waiver for e-readers that have the following features: >>>> >>>>>>>>>>> (1) they have no LCD screen; >>>>>>>>>>> (2) they have no camera; >>>>>>>>>>> (3) they are not offered or shipped to consumers with built-in ACS >>>>>>>>>>> client applications and their manufacturers do not develop ACS >>>>>>>>>>> applications for their respective devices, though the devices may >>>>>>>>>>> include a browser and social media applications; and >>>>>>>>>>> (4) they are marketed to consumers as reading devices and >>>>>>>>>>> promotional material does not tout the capability to access ACS. >>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Comment Deadline: September 3, 2013 >>>>>>>>>>> Reply Comment Deadline: September 13, 2013 >>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Links to the Public Notice (including filing instructions): >>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>> (PDF) >>>>>>>>>>> http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-13-1686A1.pdf >>>>>>>>>>> <http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-13-1686A1.pdf> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> (Word) >>>>>>>>>>> http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-13-1686A1.doc >>>>>>>>>>> <http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-13-1686A1.doc> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> (Text) >>>>>>>>>>> http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-13-1686A1.txt >>>>>>>>>>> <http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-13-1686A1.txt> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Link to the Coalition Petition (May 15, 2013): >>>>>>>>>>> http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022314526 >>>>>>>>>>> <http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022314526> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Link to the Letter Supplementing the Coalition Petition (July 17, >>>>>>>>>>> 2013): http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520931307 >>>>>>>>>>> <http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520931307> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>> For further information, please contact Eliot Greenwald at (202) >>>>>>>>>>> 418-2235 oreliot.greenw...@fcc.gov >>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:eliot.greenw...@fcc.gov><mailto:eliot.greenw...@fcc.gov >>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:eliot.greenw...@fcc.gov>>; or Rosaline Crawford at (202) >>>>>>>>>>> 418-2075 orrosaline.crawf...@fcc.gov >>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:rosaline.crawf...@fcc.gov><mailto:rosaline.crawf...@fcc.gov >>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:rosaline.crawf...@fcc.gov>>. >>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>>>>>>> Groups "MacVisionaries" group. >>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >>>>>>>>>>> send an email to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >>>>>>>>>>> To post to this group, send email to >>>>>>>>>>> macvisionaries@googlegroups.com. >>>>>>>>>>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries >>>>>>>>>>> <http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries>. >>>>>>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out >>>>>>>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out>. >>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>>>>>> Groups "MacVisionaries" group. >>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >>>>>>>>>> send an email to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >>>>>>>>>> To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com. >>>>>>>>>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries. >>>>>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>>>>> Groups "MacVisionaries" group. >>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >>>>>>>>> send an email to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >>>>>>>>> To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com. >>>>>>>>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries. >>>>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>>>> Groups "MacVisionaries" group. >>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>>>>>> an email to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >>>>>>>> To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com. >>>>>>>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries. >>>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>>> Groups "MacVisionaries" group. >>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>>>>> an email to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >>>>>>> To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com. >>>>>>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries. >>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>> Groups "MacVisionaries" group. >>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>>>> an email to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >>>>>> To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com. >>>>>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries. >>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >>>>> "MacVisionaries" group. >>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >>>>> email to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >>>>> To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com. >>>>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries. >>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >>> "MacVisionaries" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >>> email to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >>> To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com. >>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries. >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>> >>> >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "MacVisionaries" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >> To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com. >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> >> > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "MacVisionaries" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MacVisionaries" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
