/. doesn't post the direct link because they could be sued by nytimes for linking to their sub-domain. If it is the poster that does that, they hold no liability, because it is someone else. Doesn't anyone see that is why they never do it, and ask others to do it?
The reason for them not doing it automaticly is that it would be a violation by/. of sometype of law/etc. By pointing to the real story, they can avoid any type of legal challenges, and leave it up to the person to break the rules.
It's once again a way to cover from legal problems, same as all of the legalese written on the bottom of the page.
What type of filters would they use for the internet cafe's?
Normal filters would have to be updated extremely often with the list of blocked site, since it is so easy to create one. Or would they use reverse logic and give a list of allowed sites, with the person having to petition for each specific site. This would destroy any real use of internet.
I think the best way to make sure that the students will not lookup inappropriate material is to require the students to login before surfing. The idea that they would be logged with their name and the site which they visited would stop most from doing it during school. Nobody wants to get into trouble for something they can as easily do at home.
What is really meant by this is that you can't use the API given by AOL to create something that'll interopperate with some other service. In other words, you can't use their API and have a client that'll also work with MSN messenger or even AIM.
How about an even cheaper way to find out if a lander works:
Land it on EARTH!!!
I mean, how expensive would it be to have a lander land in some desert in Midwest. I would guess that'd be much cheaper than a moonlanding, and more information would be gathered.
Now, the interesting thing is how long until NASA will send the first human to another planet; or again to the moon.
Another good use of sending more stuff to the moon would be to check out the fisibility of setting up a station there that is mostly self-supporting.
From what I remember from my Psych Intro course, the improvements follow deminishing return. Therefore, more sleep != better after some time.
A bit off topic, is another affect of large amount of sleep would be to break your daily cycle. This is the cycle that makes you most alert in the middle of the day, and sleepy at the end. The cycle is also responsible for jet lag, which is why one of the best ways to fight jet lag is to go to sleep the first night at their time, or spend "your night" (the night of the place you are from ) walking outside in sunlight.
The cycles of dreams do happen on about 90 minute cycle, but there is a difference between start of sleep and end of sleep.
At the start of sleep, you spend most of the time in the Stage 1-4 sleep, where your body tries to get the physical effects of the day flushed out. (rest physically).
Every 90 minutes you go back from the stage 4 sleep into REM sleep, which lasts upto 10 mins at start. After about first 4 hours of sleep, you start to spend more of those 90 minutes in REM and less in stage 2-4. By the time you are ready to wake up from the 8 hour (supposed best number of hours to sleep) sleep, you start to spend almost 45 minutes at a time in the REM sleep, seeing those cool dreams you rememember in the morning.
This is all I can remember from my intro Psych course.
It seems that this refusal to hear the case, and upholding the rulling that ISPs aren't common carriers might have two interesting outcomes:
1. AOL can't be regulated by FCC to release the AIM source. Take it whatever way you want, but FCC won't be able to add that as a requirement for merger, as the ISP isn't part of their jurisdiction, only cable services.
2. Napster would not be considered a common carrier, as it is providing something more than just the bare-bone connection of the telephones. This would probably be bad news for Napster, as that was their chief defense.
The Unix clients are a very small niche of the total population of AIM software. If you would notice, AOL has not allowed any windows clients to connect to their services, even through the TiK/ToC protocol.
There is a reason behind this, and it's called market share. AOL wants to control a greater market share, so that whenever it decides to come out w/ some way of making money off the client, most of the intended audience would get the ads.
The geek population is not very good as an target audience, as it is very unlikely to use AOL's services beyond AIM, and are very likely to break any mechanism by which ads are delivered (filter out the site) destroying the revenue. Therefore, they are allowed to create their own clients, as long as they do not compete with the official one. (Once again, notice that there is no Windows clients that really work well)
I think there's just a small problem with your reasoning.
SP/Annoy blockades the proceedings of the investigation and request for disclosure of identity based not upon merits of the investigation, but rather on principle, horribly delaying the investigation into a threat of violence against an individual. (NOT cool).
From the website, it seems to me that if the police/authorities managed to convince the court about the need for the identity, ISP/Annoy would provide it. Except that the court was not convinced enough, only enough to gag, but not enough to request it. (if court request information, I think the company/person would be in deep *trouble* if they don't provide) In this case, there wasn't enough evidence that the person's identity was crucial for investigation.
The release on the Annoy.com website is still accessible. Maybe the other site got itself./ed and decided to take off the page, although that's very doubtful. Probably just a glitch.
Slashdot Mirror
/. doesn't post the direct link because they could be sued by nytimes for linking to their sub-domain. If it is the poster that does that, they hold no liability, because it is someone else. Doesn't anyone see that is why they never do it, and ask others to do it?
The reason for them not doing it automaticly is that it would be a violation by /. of sometype of law/etc. By pointing to the real story, they can avoid any type of legal challenges, and leave it up to the person to break the rules.
It's once again a way to cover from legal problems, same as all of the legalese written on the bottom of the page.
Why would M$ want AOL on their platform? They have their own MSN to stuff down people's throats.
What type of filters would they use for the internet cafe's?
Normal filters would have to be updated extremely often with the list of blocked site, since it is so easy to create one. Or would they use reverse logic and give a list of allowed sites, with the person having to petition for each specific site. This would destroy any real use of internet.
I think the best way to make sure that the students will not lookup inappropriate material is to require the students to login before surfing. The idea that they would be logged with their name and the site which they visited would stop most from doing it during school. Nobody wants to get into trouble for something they can as easily do at home.
What is really meant by this is that you can't use the API given by AOL to create something that'll interopperate with some other service. In other words, you can't use their API and have a client that'll also work with MSN messenger or even AIM.
Now, the interesting thing is how long until NASA will send the first human to another planet; or again to the moon.
Another good use of sending more stuff to the moon would be to check out the fisibility of setting up a station there that is mostly self-supporting.
A bit off topic, is another affect of large amount of sleep would be to break your daily cycle. This is the cycle that makes you most alert in the middle of the day, and sleepy at the end. The cycle is also responsible for jet lag, which is why one of the best ways to fight jet lag is to go to sleep the first night at their time, or spend "your night" (the night of the place you are from ) walking outside in sunlight.
At the start of sleep, you spend most of the time in the Stage 1-4 sleep, where your body tries to get the physical effects of the day flushed out. (rest physically).
Every 90 minutes you go back from the stage 4 sleep into REM sleep, which lasts upto 10 mins at start. After about first 4 hours of sleep, you start to spend more of those 90 minutes in REM and less in stage 2-4. By the time you are ready to wake up from the 8 hour (supposed best number of hours to sleep) sleep, you start to spend almost 45 minutes at a time in the REM sleep, seeing those cool dreams you rememember in the morning.
This is all I can remember from my intro Psych course.
1. AOL can't be regulated by FCC to release the AIM source. Take it whatever way you want, but FCC won't be able to add that as a requirement for merger, as the ISP isn't part of their jurisdiction, only cable services.
2. Napster would not be considered a common carrier, as it is providing something more than just the bare-bone connection of the telephones. This would probably be bad news for Napster, as that was their chief defense.
Any other possible effects are also possible.
There is a reason behind this, and it's called market share. AOL wants to control a greater market share, so that whenever it decides to come out w/ some way of making money off the client, most of the intended audience would get the ads.
The geek population is not very good as an target audience, as it is very unlikely to use AOL's services beyond AIM, and are very likely to break any mechanism by which ads are delivered (filter out the site) destroying the revenue. Therefore, they are allowed to create their own clients, as long as they do not compete with the official one. (Once again, notice that there is no Windows clients that really work well)
I think there's just a small problem with your reasoning. SP/Annoy blockades the proceedings of the investigation and request for disclosure of identity based not upon merits of the investigation, but rather on principle, horribly delaying the investigation into a threat of violence against an individual. (NOT cool). From the website, it seems to me that if the police/authorities managed to convince the court about the need for the identity, ISP/Annoy would provide it. Except that the court was not convinced enough, only enough to gag, but not enough to request it. (if court request information, I think the company/person would be in deep *trouble* if they don't provide) In this case, there wasn't enough evidence that the person's identity was crucial for investigation.
The URL in article was wrong. Here's the right URL: www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle /archive/2000/09/14/BU108292.DTL.
Enjoy it, and don't think there's a conspiracy everywhere.
The release on the Annoy.com website is still accessible. Maybe the other site got itself ./ed and decided to take off the page, although that's very doubtful. Probably just a glitch.