(It'll probably get marked -100 Redundant, but...)
I think this is a good thing. Even though he died a tragic death, for Yahoo! to expose his account would have set a bad precedent. I've always been uncomfortable considering what would happen should I meet my untimely end, what with people cleaning out my apartment and such. The Internet is unique in that no one has to clean out your possessions.
If you want to have someone get access to your account, give them the passwords or leave them in the will. And don't argue that this is a unique situation: If anyone should have known they were going into a dangerous situation, a soldier heading to Iraq should have known. Otherwise, if you haven't given out the passwords, your information stays private. There are no legal concerns, no arguments over property rights, no question as to your death. If Yahoo! is allowed to start giving access to someone's account upon death, where would it stop? What about a father with parents AND children? Who gets the password? What about an estranged wife with two sons and a husband? Who gets the password? Do same-sex couples count as "password eligible?" What about in cases where someone is terminally ill or on their deathbed? Or in a vegetative state? Or missing?
I'd rather avoid this mess altogether. It's probably spelled out in the Agreement you said "Yes" to when you activated your Yahoo! mail account, or at least it should be. And I'd like to commend Yahoo! for sticking to the rules and principles they built their system on, even in the face of a torrent (not a BitTorrent, mind you) of negative publicity.
Actually, he also proposed a survey reform. As a result, he got 14 out of 20. Unless this is a year that the survey contains a "Newton", in which case no one really cares. Unless it's a Fig Newton.
In other news, EA reached a licensing deal with the CIA. They now have exclusive rights to publish stealth action games. EA's progammers claimed their future games would have 25% fewer glitches and bugs than previous offerings, meaning online play would simply be "unplayable" due to cheating instead of "completely unplayable."
I taught an ESL class for some Hispanic students for a semester, and while I had intially wanted to leverage the school's computer network for resources, I found it wasn't worth the trouble.
Instead, the simple "use" of the language proved to be the most important part of the experience. I had the benefit that the students were immersed in an English-speaking culture, but you can take advantage of that too. During classes, instruct your students that they are not allowed to speak or write in anything but Japanese. Forbid even the use of computers as translators during class discussions. And teach them the Japanese equivalent of "I don't understand" ASAP. By eliminating the translator-crutch, you force them to build logical connections between the English that they know and the Japanese that they don't. Using a computer just teaches them that they can always look up a word they don't know.
If you do want to provide technology, I would suggest only allowing the students to use it while doing homework assignments and projects. Those are instances of students building a vocabulary. But when it comes to using that vocabulary in conversation, technology can hinder the language development.
If I cover up the camera at the ATM before making my transaction, the ATM will still process the transaction and allow me to complete my buisness. If, however, I am subsequently mugged, stabbed, and/or robbed, it's my own damn fault.
These postal cameras, however, are clearly not meant for the public's safety, as they void the transaction should you compromise the photo. That tells me that it's not a security issue at all.
That's the difference.
They had to be careful with what they said in the ad. IRC, they got the "non-profit" rate for the full page spreads. Had they mentioned IE, the advertising czars at the New York Times would have revoked the non-profit status of the ad, and the cost would have been around twice as high.
Slashdot Mirror
Good thing I'm back with good 'ol Charter Communications. All they do is rob you blind with sub-par cable and Internet service...
I think this is a good thing. Even though he died a tragic death, for Yahoo! to expose his account would have set a bad precedent. I've always been uncomfortable considering what would happen should I meet my untimely end, what with people cleaning out my apartment and such. The Internet is unique in that no one has to clean out your possessions.
If you want to have someone get access to your account, give them the passwords or leave them in the will. And don't argue that this is a unique situation: If anyone should have known they were going into a dangerous situation, a soldier heading to Iraq should have known. Otherwise, if you haven't given out the passwords, your information stays private. There are no legal concerns, no arguments over property rights, no question as to your death. If Yahoo! is allowed to start giving access to someone's account upon death, where would it stop? What about a father with parents AND children? Who gets the password? What about an estranged wife with two sons and a husband? Who gets the password? Do same-sex couples count as "password eligible?" What about in cases where someone is terminally ill or on their deathbed? Or in a vegetative state? Or missing?
I'd rather avoid this mess altogether. It's probably spelled out in the Agreement you said "Yes" to when you activated your Yahoo! mail account, or at least it should be. And I'd like to commend Yahoo! for sticking to the rules and principles they built their system on, even in the face of a torrent (not a BitTorrent, mind you) of negative publicity.
This guy really needs to reevaluate his employment contract. Don't most companies give you float days if a holiday falls on a weekend?
Actually, he also proposed a survey reform. As a result, he got 14 out of 20. Unless this is a year that the survey contains a "Newton", in which case no one really cares. Unless it's a Fig Newton.
In other news, EA reached a licensing deal with the CIA. They now have exclusive rights to publish stealth action games. EA's progammers claimed their future games would have 25% fewer glitches and bugs than previous offerings, meaning online play would simply be "unplayable" due to cheating instead of "completely unplayable."
Instead, the simple "use" of the language proved to be the most important part of the experience. I had the benefit that the students were immersed in an English-speaking culture, but you can take advantage of that too. During classes, instruct your students that they are not allowed to speak or write in anything but Japanese. Forbid even the use of computers as translators during class discussions. And teach them the Japanese equivalent of "I don't understand" ASAP. By eliminating the translator-crutch, you force them to build logical connections between the English that they know and the Japanese that they don't. Using a computer just teaches them that they can always look up a word they don't know.
If you do want to provide technology, I would suggest only allowing the students to use it while doing homework assignments and projects. Those are instances of students building a vocabulary. But when it comes to using that vocabulary in conversation, technology can hinder the language development.
Good luck!
If I cover up the camera at the ATM before making my transaction, the ATM will still process the transaction and allow me to complete my buisness. If, however, I am subsequently mugged, stabbed, and/or robbed, it's my own damn fault. These postal cameras, however, are clearly not meant for the public's safety, as they void the transaction should you compromise the photo. That tells me that it's not a security issue at all. That's the difference.
They had to be careful with what they said in the ad. IRC, they got the "non-profit" rate for the full page spreads. Had they mentioned IE, the advertising czars at the New York Times would have revoked the non-profit status of the ad, and the cost would have been around twice as high.