Comments on: Missing Link Daily

By: Pavlov's Cat

Pavlov's Cat — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 14:39:02 +0000

‘Cooter’?

Is that something you get cooties from?

By: Niall*

Niall* — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 11:25:34 +0000

weird

By: gilmae

gilmae — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 10:43:35 +0000

Clearly you’ve never followed a an ex-girlfriend’s new boyfriend around for a month to find where he gets his haircut, seduced with the not-entirely-self-confident trainee to get some hair clippings, had them stuffed into a doll and then paid a two dollar hooker to rub it on her cooter just so the two-timing bitch who dumped you would get hers.

No, nor have I, but I might have.

By: Niall*

Niall* — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 09:39:30 +0000

I’d call it voodoo actually, Gilmae. Black Magic has a purpose. Voodoo never appears to.

By: Ken Parish

Ken Parish — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 02:48:16 +0000

S22(2A) is not limited to enrolled students but includes all “persons” who may register for training courses. There may be a question as to whether a conference is a “training course” but it’s at least arguable.

However live interaction might conceivably be more problematic in terms of the s22(4) “unjustifiable hardship” defence, if UWA doesn’t already have the technology to allow live audio or video interaction (it isn’t cheap, and free online chat solutions like Yahoo Voicechat may well involve unacceptable network security risks).

By: lauredhel

lauredhel — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 02:38:10 +0000

Ken, I think you’re on the wrong foot a little, though I thank you for caring. I’m not a student (though I am a graduate who fought for external course provision, and got it, albeit only with the participation of certain lecturers (others refused point blank)).

And I’m also somewhat more audacious than you think: I would like real-time remote access to participation in conferences and seminars, not just passive streaming of content. I really can’t see the point in paying exorbitant conference registration fees to get a recording delivered and no more.

By: Ken Parish

Ken Parish — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 02:07:58 +0000

Just on a very quick superficial examination (all relevant disclaimers inserted) I reckon there's a plausible argument that UWA's treatment of lauredhel may breach section 22 of the Disability Discimination Act 1992 (Cth). A claim that failing to stream or otherwise transmit conference proceedings over the net amounts to "denying the student access, or limiting the students access, to any benefit provided by the educational authority" or "developing curricula or training courses having a content that will either exclude the person from participation" is no doubt fairly innovative/audacious but still worth a try IMO. In light of UWA's possession of Lectopia technology you wouldn't think they'd be able to succeed in a defence under s22(4) that "avoidance of that discrimination would impose an unjustifiable hardship on the education provider concerned."

By: gilmae

gilmae — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 01:32:51 +0000

Pretty sure they are Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge.