[dewilson58]

Originally Posted by Advogado

I am not sure how you know that, and I doubt it. However, the particular CNN program I alluded to is not all that relevant. The point is that today's speech to text software works reasonably well.

Like most people, I use speech-to-text software every day on my I-phone and it works-- not perfectly, but well enough to convey the substance of what is said. There is no justification for a nonprofit, like the Charter School, in order to satisfy the predilection of a small number of people, having to bear the cost of sign-language interpreters rather than to provide, the less-expensive, speech-to-text software and equipment.

Not an I-Phone guy, but my phone does a great job speech-to-text. I think it likes my bride's voice better than mine and it even picks up the radio/tv if I have it going in the background. The technology is available.

[CFrance]

Originally Posted by dewilson58

Not an I-Phone guy, but my phone does a great job speech-to-text. I think it likes my bride's voice better than mine and it even picks up the radio/tv if I have it going in the background. The technology is available.

But that is part of the problem--it picks up background sounds. This would work very poorly in a classroom situation. Plus you would have more than one person's voice in a classroom, whereas some of the speech to text technology has to "get used" to a speaker's particular voice.

If this worked well for closed captioning (I worked in the editing end of that field), it would have taken over a long time ago, as offline closed captioning (where the show is captioned in advance and sent back to the network--called pop-up as opposed to real time captioning that you see on news broadcasts) is very expensive. It took a ton of lobbying to get captioning to be required by law. If it weren't, none of the networks would have ever started doing it.

[Advogado]

Originally Posted by ColdNoMore

You presume/assume...incorrectly.

I moved here after this lawsuit was filed...and am not deaf.

I am however, an advocate of the ADA...for those not as fortunate as myself.
ir
I am also pretty amazed at how you made the leap from someone pointing out your error (which you still refused to acknowledge)....to hoping you had a target for your ire.

Whether or not the captions on the CNN program were software-prepared or manually prepared is irrelevant, and I won't waste time and space debating the question. The point is that there is good speech-to-text software available.

[ColdNoMore]

Originally Posted by CFrance

But that is part of the problem--it picks up background sounds. This would work very poorly in a classroom situation. Plus you would have more than one person's voice in a classroom, whereas some of the speech to text technology has to "get used" to a speaker's particular voice.

If this worked well for closed captioning (I worked in the editing end of that field), it would have taken over a long time ago, as offline closed captioning (where the show is captioned in advance and sent back to the network--called pop-up as opposed to real time captioning that you see on news broadcasts) is very expensive. It took a ton of lobbying to get captioning to be required by law. If it weren't, none of the networks would have ever started doing it.

At last, someone else who knows of what they speak.

Good post.

[Wavy Chips]

2 things I wonder about:

1. Did Lee Harvey Oswald Act alone?

2. Would this lawsuit have ever been filed without its lead plaintiff?

[dewilson58]

Originally Posted by CFrance

But that is part of the problem--it picks up background sounds. This would work very poorly in a classroom situation. Plus you would have more than one person's voice in a classroom, whereas some of the speech to text technology has to "get used" to a speaker's particular voice.

If this worked well for closed captioning (I worked in the editing end of that field), it would have taken over a long time ago, as offline closed captioning (where the show is captioned in advance and sent back to the network--called pop-up as opposed to real time captioning that you see on news broadcasts) is very expensive. It took a ton of lobbying to get captioning to be required by law. If it weren't, none of the networks would have ever started doing it.

C

I "always" agree with you, not looking for a debate........I was just giving an example of "free technology" that comes with my phone and it works great. My bride's voice gets picked up because I have it on the speaker microphone option. When it's off this mode......it's perfect.

FYI........I pay for this technology in my business and my employees use S-to-T technology a lot. No issues. We rely on the accuracy of the translation.

Just sharing with the ToTV readers the success I have experienced.........not looking for a debate.

Just trying to give positive information on a very emotional thread.

[Advogado]

Originally Posted by Wavy Chips

2 things I wonder about:

1. Did Lee Harvey Oswald Act alone?

2. Would this lawsuit have ever been filed without its lead plaintiff?

1. I worked as an FBI special agent for 4 years during the period of 1967-1971 and never heard anything to indicate that he didn't. Highly unlikely that he didn't since it is hard to keep secrets for a long period of time.

2. I doubt it. Take a look at his Facebook page to understand where he is coming from.

Abraham Lincloln said, "Discourage litigation. Persuade your neighbors to compromise whenever you can. Point out to them how the nominal winner is often a real loser in fees, expenses, and waste of time. As a peacemaker the lawyer has a superior opportunity of being a good man. There will still be business enough."

If plaintiffs and their attorneys had heeded this advice, the deaf would probably have had reasonable accommodation and the Lifelong Learning College would still be open.

[Advogado]

There is a letter from Professor Waller in today's Daily Sun lamenting the closing of the Lifelong Learning College because of plaintiffs' "frivolous" lawsuit. The letter is well worth reading.

[trichard]

Originally Posted by Advogado

There is a lot of blame to go around.

What Schwarz and the plaintiffs did in bringing the lawsuit was reprehensible. They have been responsible for destroying a major asset of our community. Before starting the suit, they should have reached out to the community for support. This is a community of volunteers. Had Schwarz and the others publicly described their concerns, people could have stepped up to help or volunteer: sign-language interpreters, donations for speech-to-text equipment, etc.

Furthermore, modern speech-to-text software and equipment clearly works well enough in this day and age to constitute "reasonable accommodation". I recently watched, using closed captions, a live panel discussion among six participants on CNN. While not perfect, the captions clearly allowed the viewer to follow the substance of the discussion. Keep in mind also that sign-language "interpreters" interpret, they don't translate. That is, the are conveying the substance of what is being said.

In fact, it seems clear that it is just a matter of time before sign-language interpreters go the way of Latin interpreters. A problem seems to be intransigence on the part of the plaintiffs, who are part of a deaf culture that is centered on sign language and supports a commercial sign-language industry. It does not seem that members of that culture should expect the public to pay for their resistance to technological change.

On the other hand, the Developer, who controls both the defendants in the case, suppressed all news of the litigation for years-- apparently to avoid bad publicity. Then, without any public discussion or pleas for the kind of community input and involvement described above, he abruptly pulled the rug out from under us by closing down the Lifelong Learning College-- that at a point in time when the defendants were winning the lawsuit.

What prompted him to do this? School systems throughout the country run adult ed programs like the Lifelong Learning College despite the ADA and lawsuits like this one. The details underlying his decision are unclear, and the two articles in the Developer-controlled Daily Sun fail to shine much light on the subject, other than launching a barrage of criticisms (at least some of which appears to be well deserved) at the plaintiffs.

Well stated! Agree.

[The Mountaineer]

OK, a simplistic layman's response. If the hard of hearing want reasonable accomodations, that makes sense. But if they want money, or the attorneys who do this all over the country, want money primarily, then that is a problem. The Villages is famous for helping those who need help, voluntarily. But if someone is in effect trying to extort money for a law firm, that's a bad thing. I would think both sides can agree on that. We all should want the problem solved, not to get a pile of money from The Villages' ruling family.

[Wavy Chips]

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there supposed to be some sort of a hearing today in either Ocala or Atlanta? If it's a public hearing, I would suppose the Orlando paper and possibly The Sun would be in attendance, and we will have more information to work with. Again, I'm not sure if I have the correct date.

[villagetinker]

Originally Posted by Bonnevie

friend who belongs to POA sent me the following. the appeal is to be able to go after the lifestyle groups.

However, the undisputed facts establish that while the Districts facilitate both the formation and operation of the RLGs, the RLGs programs, activities, and events are planned, controlled, and led by private residents of The Villages, and actions taken on behalf of the RLGs are not actions of the Districts. Thus, they are not required to meet ADA requirements. However, a challenge to this Judge’s Opinion is on the docket in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals (Atlanta, Ga.) for December 12, 2016. The POA, along with District Staff and District Counsel, are confident that they are on sound ground and that the Court will uphold the original finding, but we will not know for sure until the Appeals Court makes its ruling. We have no time line as to when the Court decision will be issued.

Any word on what happened?

[Advogado]

Originally Posted by villagetinker

Any word on what happened?

Didn't you read about it in the Daily Sun today?

Oh, I forgot. The developer controls tthe Daily Sun, and apparently because the developer didn't want the adverse publicity, the Daily Sun suppressed all news of the story for years. This is the major story directly affecting Villagers today. But unless the Daily Sun is shamed into acting like a real newspaper, we still will probably not get any details from it.

While the plaintiffs deserve the lion's share of the blame for the shutdown because of their frivolous lawsuit, it was the developer who made the actual decision to shut down the college and who suppressed news of the controversy for years.

[janmcn]

Originally Posted by Advogado

Didn't you read about it in the Daily Sun today?

Oh, I forgot. The developer controls tthe Daily Sun, and apparently because the developer didn't want the adverse publicity, the Daily Sun suppressed all news of the story for years. This is the major story directly affecting Villagers today. But unless the Daily Sun is shamed into acting like a real newspaper, we still will probably not get any details from it.

While the plaintiffs deserve the lion's share of the blame for the shutdown because of their frivolous lawsuit, it was the developer who made the actual decision to shut down the college and who suppressed news of the controversy for years.

The developer doesn't need this added perk to sell houses any longer.

[graciegirl]

[QUOTE=Advogado;1334602]Didn't you read about it in the Daily Sun today?

Oh, I forgot. The developer controls tthe Daily Sun, and apparently because the developer didn't want the adverse publicity, the Daily Sun suppressed all news of the story for years. This is the major story directly affecting Villagers today. But unless the Daily Sun is shamed into acting like a real newspaper, we still will probably not get any details from it.

QUOTE]

I absolutely disagree. AND......


I would have closed it too. There is no way you can fight the Federal Government and win.

The Morse's are not our mother. I get so tired of the constant criticism about the developers from the same folks. Seems like they could find some good here.