Many adopted people have no way of finding out anything about their family history, including medical information. This could at least help these people find some answers to their medical and ancestral questions.
Or nimi mute would also work (with.foreign{font-style:italic;} of course). Still compatible with IE6, this way does not mix presentation with semantics.
Some people argue that marking all foreign language words, ship names, genus and species, legal cases, rhyme schemes, stage directions, theorems, etc. with span tags and corresponding classes is impractical. But in reality, very few sites are going to have content that has all of these things. (And if you do mark these with classes, you get the added bonus of being able to easily search for all content that includes a ship name.)
As for microformats, I recommend not using microformats that use formating tags like <i> or <b> or that stretch interpretations of tags like <abbr>. As cool as hCalendar could be, my clients who use screen readers should not be subjected to it.
As for blender... I don't remember how we got here.
is for adding emphasis. is for citations. The both italicize by default, but have different semantic meanings. In my opinion, should never be used, as it is a formating tag and adds no meaning to the document.
I have a merchant account, so I tested it to see the minimum amout of info needed to complete a transaction.
Account Number Expiration Date Amount to charge
That's it. No PIN, no 3 digit code from the back, no name, and no address required. It's a little frightening that you don't even need a name.
Landing in Ohio, launching from unknown location
on
A Spaceport In Ohio?
·
· Score: 4, Informative
The article mentions that the site for launching and landing could be different. Ohio seems to be bidding for a landing and manufacturing site, with launching as a possiblity only if it's approved by the FAA. The article even mentions the idea of launching off of a barge and landing in Ohio.
I'd recommend that your friend talk to the people at the Online Ethics Center for Engineering and Science Helpline. They will give him an answer based on the IEEE Code of Ethics. Although aimed primarily at engineers, they are also able to help IT professionals. The website is also a valueable source of information on topics such as disclosure.
One further note: If any of the leaked information could cause a public saftey concern, disclosure may be even more important to consider. Also, if one of the clients is the federal or a state government, he may want to consult a lawyer to see if diclosure is mandated.
One of my major clients has had trouble with AOL's spam blocking policies. He runs a site where people who own vacation properties can list details about the properties. People can then do a search to find a certain set of properties, and then request quotes from the property owners that meet their criteria. The site handles the email to both the owners and the vacationers. Both parties want to receive the emails, and are expecting them. In fact, the owners are paying for the emails. But what happens is a few non-internet people see that they got 5 emails from owners (which they requested), but decide they only like 1 of the offers. So instead of just deleting the other 4, they hit the giant AOL "This is spam" button. Pretty soon, the email is blocked for a few hours (too many complaints of spam in a given period). Many of the property owners have AOL accounts, and when they complain that they aren't getting email, the best we can offer is a recommendation to find a new email provider. We set up an RSS feed for users so they wouldn't have to rely on email, but the people who use it are not the same people who use AOL. On a good day, 200 emails go to AOL and none are bounced. On a bad day, we can have 50% of them come back.
The problem with AOL is that the system is automated based on the responses of users who do not really know the definition of spam. Any email they don't like is marked as spam, whether or not it is an email they requested.
Getting whitelisted isn't an option because the amount of email my client sends isn't enough to qualify for AOL's whitelist. How screwed up is that? To get whitelisted, you have to be a bulk mailer.
Not all commercial email is spam. Not all bulk email is spam. Not all messages that are reported as spam by users are spam.
What should be the reasonable liability if a company fails to make an effort to inform a user of a TOS amendment in this way?
At the most, the remainder of the subscription fees from the time of TOS change to the cancellation or renewal of service. Of course, in my example the user is paying no subscription (it's a free guestbook), so there should be no liability. It would be hard to argue that adding spam protection to a free guestbook caused a business or personal loss that the website maintainer was liable for. If it were at all possible I'm sure Hotmail would have been sued by someone when they added it to their email service.
In they same way, it would be hard to argue that Livejournal's addition of TOS terms prohibiting blocking adds through CSS or JS tricks would constitute an unreasonable business loss.
You are forgetting that TOS are not just written by big corporate behemoths, but also by small businesses that need such protection. The reason a TOS is so one sided is because development is also one sided. Without a clause allowing a developer to change the terms of the agreement, they would also no be able to develop the web site. For example: If I had developed a free guestbook website with no spam protection, and then had a TOS that did not include an alter clause, I would not be able to add spam protection to the site at a later date. It could be argued that by filtering out certain posts, I am changing the service that is provided and breaching the contract. Even if I made the spam filtering opt-in, it could be argued that I am now attempting to collect additional data (willingness to accept spam) from a user, and therefore breaching contract. Not only must that clause be there, the mutability of the TOS itself must be there in case new features need added clauses later on. For example, let's say I decide to allow users on my free guestbook site to opt into ads, and then receive a portion of the ad revenue in form of a check. Now I must collect information that was not previously needed (including SSN if the user is in the US and makes more than $600), and add TOS clauses dealing with things such as minimum amounts before mailing the checks. If I had not had a clause to allow me to change the TOS, I would not be able to add such a feature.
On all my sites, I encourage all users to read the Terms of Service. Any time the TOS changes due to legal requirements of a new feature, they are informed, and if they terminate the account due to changes are given a refund for the unused portion of their subscription.
Slashdot Mirror
You may want to take this test to see if your beliefs about personal identity are consistent. http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/identity.htm
Many adopted people have no way of finding out anything about their family history, including medical information. This could at least help these people find some answers to their medical and ancestral questions.
Or nimi mute would also work (with .foreign{font-style:italic;} of course). Still compatible with IE6, this way does not mix presentation with semantics.
Some people argue that marking all foreign language words, ship names, genus and species, legal cases, rhyme schemes, stage directions, theorems, etc. with span tags and corresponding classes is impractical. But in reality, very few sites are going to have content that has all of these things. (And if you do mark these with classes, you get the added bonus of being able to easily search for all content that includes a ship name.)
As for microformats, I recommend not using microformats that use formating tags like <i> or <b> or that stretch interpretations of tags like <abbr>. As cool as hCalendar could be, my clients who use screen readers should not be subjected to it.
As for blender... I don't remember how we got here.
is for adding emphasis. is for citations. The both italicize by default, but have different semantic meanings. In my opinion, should never be used, as it is a formating tag and adds no meaning to the document.
I have a merchant account, so I tested it to see the minimum amout of info needed to complete a transaction.
Account Number
Expiration Date
Amount to charge
That's it. No PIN, no 3 digit code from the back, no name, and no address required. It's a little frightening that you don't even need a name.
The article mentions that the site for launching and landing could be different. Ohio seems to be bidding for a landing and manufacturing site, with launching as a possiblity only if it's approved by the FAA. The article even mentions the idea of launching off of a barge and landing in Ohio.
I'd recommend that your friend talk to the people at the Online Ethics Center for Engineering and Science Helpline. They will give him an answer based on the IEEE Code of Ethics. Although aimed primarily at engineers, they are also able to help IT professionals. The website is also a valueable source of information on topics such as disclosure.
One further note: If any of the leaked information could cause a public saftey concern, disclosure may be even more important to consider. Also, if one of the clients is the federal or a state government, he may want to consult a lawyer to see if diclosure is mandated.
Mine is that elementary school favorite:
Ta Ta Ti-Ti Ta.
I guess we'll have to teach rhythm solmization in staff meetings.
One of my major clients has had trouble with AOL's spam blocking policies. He runs a site where people who own vacation properties can list details about the properties. People can then do a search to find a certain set of properties, and then request quotes from the property owners that meet their criteria. The site handles the email to both the owners and the vacationers. Both parties want to receive the emails, and are expecting them. In fact, the owners are paying for the emails. But what happens is a few non-internet people see that they got 5 emails from owners (which they requested), but decide they only like 1 of the offers. So instead of just deleting the other 4, they hit the giant AOL "This is spam" button. Pretty soon, the email is blocked for a few hours (too many complaints of spam in a given period). Many of the property owners have AOL accounts, and when they complain that they aren't getting email, the best we can offer is a recommendation to find a new email provider. We set up an RSS feed for users so they wouldn't have to rely on email, but the people who use it are not the same people who use AOL. On a good day, 200 emails go to AOL and none are bounced. On a bad day, we can have 50% of them come back.
The problem with AOL is that the system is automated based on the responses of users who do not really know the definition of spam. Any email they don't like is marked as spam, whether or not it is an email they requested.
Getting whitelisted isn't an option because the amount of email my client sends isn't enough to qualify for AOL's whitelist. How screwed up is that? To get whitelisted, you have to be a bulk mailer.
Not all commercial email is spam. Not all bulk email is spam. Not all messages that are reported as spam by users are spam.
What should be the reasonable liability if a company fails to make an effort to inform a user of a TOS amendment in this way?
At the most, the remainder of the subscription fees from the time of TOS change to the cancellation or renewal of service. Of course, in my example the user is paying no subscription (it's a free guestbook), so there should be no liability. It would be hard to argue that adding spam protection to a free guestbook caused a business or personal loss that the website maintainer was liable for. If it were at all possible I'm sure Hotmail would have been sued by someone when they added it to their email service.
In they same way, it would be hard to argue that Livejournal's addition of TOS terms prohibiting blocking adds through CSS or JS tricks would constitute an unreasonable business loss.
You are forgetting that TOS are not just written by big corporate behemoths, but also by small businesses that need such protection. The reason a TOS is so one sided is because development is also one sided. Without a clause allowing a developer to change the terms of the agreement, they would also no be able to develop the web site. For example: If I had developed a free guestbook website with no spam protection, and then had a TOS that did not include an alter clause, I would not be able to add spam protection to the site at a later date. It could be argued that by filtering out certain posts, I am changing the service that is provided and breaching the contract. Even if I made the spam filtering opt-in, it could be argued that I am now attempting to collect additional data (willingness to accept spam) from a user, and therefore breaching contract.
Not only must that clause be there, the mutability of the TOS itself must be there in case new features need added clauses later on. For example, let's say I decide to allow users on my free guestbook site to opt into ads, and then receive a portion of the ad revenue in form of a check. Now I must collect information that was not previously needed (including SSN if the user is in the US and makes more than $600), and add TOS clauses dealing with things such as minimum amounts before mailing the checks. If I had not had a clause to allow me to change the TOS, I would not be able to add such a feature.
On all my sites, I encourage all users to read the Terms of Service. Any time the TOS changes due to legal requirements of a new feature, they are informed, and if they terminate the account due to changes are given a refund for the unused portion of their subscription.