The simple answer: yes, robots can harvest dynamic pages. They're all the same to your browser. Well-behaved spiders, however, will obey robots.txt files, and smart web admins will put expensive dynamic pages in that file (to reduce the server load of a spider). Poorly behaved spiders tend to be identified and blocked.
I honestly don't think there's as much harvesting going on as people think - some websites, certainly, but I imagine the main source of spam lists if companies who get the addresses (semi-)legitimatly and sell them.
The heavy spammers (the 150 that make up 90% of all US spam) aren't stupid people - harvesting a place like slashdot, for example, probably isn't worth your time, both because of the server-side protections Slashdot has against spiders, and because the ratio of false addresses is probably higher on slashdot than 90% of other websites.
There's no good reason you should have an obligation to hide your email address because of spammers. They're a burden to the internet - and just because you personally don't get any/much (I don't see your email in your slashdot id...) doesn't mean that there isn't tons out there. I don't use email alot and don't post mine publically and I get a half dozen a day. To mind, that's just unacceptable.
By some reports, and certainly in some areas, spam traffic outnumbers legitimate internet traffic. That's just ridiculous. It's a stupid practice that should be shut down.
Or ship-to-ship combat as depicted in The Forever War, by Joe Haldeman. You shot your missles or whatever, your opponent shot his missles, you both shot countermeasures, and then you waited 3 weeks to see if you were going to die. And it was all handled by computers, because the humans were unconcious in special fluid tanks to handle the acceleration.
Terminus was the game I was thinking of in my earlier post - I like how you can adjust the physics depending on how you feel like playing. The gameplay is basically the same as Freelancer - you have a ship, you get missions, you fly around, that sort of thing.
There's a great game (which, damnit, I can't remember the name of right now) which is a sort of fighter-mission type game - exactly the same as Freelancer, now that I think of it. The cool thing is that you can adjust the physics from "video game" to "full Newtonian" depending on how you feel like playing.
The entire scientific community knows all about the long term effect of microwaves. The ones from wifi can't even penetrate your skin. You can find plenty of scare-tactic information as well as rebuttals from google.
Something you might find interesting is that, while it does draw the correlations you mention, and argues convincinly in support of it's conclusions, it also notes that the shows we tend to think of as the more harmfull are not neccesarily the ones that the more aggressive people are watching. While they don't provide a breakdown or sample of shows and the way they score them, if they apply the criteria listed fairly and to all tv entertainment, then sports (especially gladitorial sports like boxing) and news would rate very high as "violent TV".
As with most studies of this nature, it's certainly not conclusive, nor should it be taken as some sort of gospel. It's an information point, nothing more.
My take? Overprotection of children has alot to do with it. Treat kids as responsible adults and you'll be amazed at how much they live up to your expectations.
I've got personal experience with it, actually - I went to an alternative high school without mandatory attendance and with variable credit. Students were treated as equals and adults, not as children who needed to be regulated and controlled.
Some kids couldn't handle it and had to go back to the regular high school (even me, for a semester), but most did fine with it. Scholarships, SAT scores, and college acceptance was much better than the regular high school (in the same small town).
It's even simpler than that. Kids like to wrestle. Sometimes kids get hurt. Sometimes, sadly, the're hurt very seriously or die. The fact that he was using a move he saw in WWF is irrelevent. It was an accident during a childs wrestling match, that's all.
Disaffected people will latch onto fantasies. Which fantasy they latch onto is more or less random. Teenagers are notoriously disaffected. It should be no suprise that they tend to latch onto and identify with fantastical literature or games or shows.
I know people who're obsessed with pro sports. They'll rant to the point of violence about the performance or lack thereof of some athlete. This is the exact same impulse that causes some 19 year old to paint the walls of his room black and start wearing paleface. It's identification with a fantasy, a way of escaping from stress in your regular life, and a way of acting out dreams you can't fulfill.
I enjoy video games, both violent and not, am amused by cartoon violence, and have a decidedly twisted sense of humour. I've been known to enjoy dominating and causing pain in other people. On the other hand, I'm also a pacifist and believe very strongly in the sanctity of human life. Behavior that is not governed by rational thought is called (suprise!) irrational behavior, and we tend to lock people up for it.
On a side note, I've never been in a war but I seriously doubt it sounds anything like a movie or battlefield 1942 (unless you're watching it on Fox, anyway. Stupid fucks).
Never happen. The US military learned it's lesson very well during Vietnam, and you'll never see the kind of footage that you saw during that war. The military keeps very strict control of battlefield reporters.
Sniper rifle. Or sneak out when they aren't racing and put remote controlled spike strips under the street. Heck, build a shaped charge and just blow a huge pothole - road funds being the way they are, it'll take 2 years for the city to fix it.
Just for the brain-damaged here: It's the mans fucking NAME. And your example would not be a violation of trademark law, since Linux (the OS) and Linux(the porn company) operate in different industries. If you're going to be a mouthy fuckwit, at least do it with something you aren't wrong about.
I understand the fundamental objection to taxes (I'm going to broaden your argument to include taxes of all kinds, not just welfare, because that's basically what you're saying here), but, in my opinion, letting individuals decide where to put thier own tax money has serious consequences for a large society, especially one like the US where we're so geographically spread apart. You said yourself - you won't donate money to support people who you yourself don't know. The idea of taxation is that you're giving money to people with the time to spend finding out who needs it and giving it to them.
Everyone deciding on an individual basis where to put money is basically a pure democracy (doesn't matter what you vote for if there's no money behind it). On top of that, it's a democracy based on wealth, not on votes - a system like the one you're describing result in an almost instant death of the middle class, and an incredible split in the distribution of wealth.
Back to welfare - I know it's annoying when you see people or adds about the crack addicted woman who has babies she mistreats for a bigger check. But, in truth, no only are those people the minority, the money spent on them is an infitismal fration of your taxes. I work for a state agency and the money we've wasted on unneccesary software licenses this year alone would feed probably a thousand welfare mothers. And even that is a drop in our budget.
The reason why this is played up is because it's an easy thing to get emotional about - if you really want to talk about money going where it shouldn't, look at pork barrel bills and (especially) military contracting. The money there thats basically given away is exponentially more than every welfare cheat in America manages to steal.
I'm not saying it's okay, but I'm saying focus your attention where it matters. From a more pragmatic point of view, it's probably cheaper to let people cheat than to spend the money you'd need to add the beuarocracy neccesary to track down the people cheating.
I've beem facing massive resistance to bringing open source (especially linux) to our company, not because of zealotry per se, although that is there, but because we don't have anyone skilled in it onboard. The total cost of switching would be considerable.
Sadly, many people DO want a yes man, because when the shit hits the fan they've got the umbrella. Management politics are fucked:P People who actually do work don't want yes men.
It's a matter of semantics, and you might get companies that call people consultants when they're doing contracting work, but in general usage, it's almost always used as the grandparent said, and I think we should maintain that usage, even if the legal title is something different. No matter what you're called, if you're hired to provide your expertise and information, you're a consultant, and if you're hired to complete a task, then you're a contractor. Simple as that.
This is exactly why anytime your client goes against your advice you should get it in writing. Otherwise it's your word against thiers. If you're a really GOOD consultant, you might even walk out if they do such a thing - after all, they hired your for your expertise.
Economics, on a broad scale, IS. Ask an economicist what would happen if America had a 0% unemployment rate. You think that every single poor person in America could become not-poor? Of course not, because them doing so would just increase the cost of living (supply and demand, remeber) until they were poor again. Any given person might be able to become successfull, but the propaganda that anyone can do it if they just work hard is exactly that.
You haven't been keeping up with your patches, then, there's been 3 from MS and all 3 required a reboot. We'll pretend that restarting services takes as much work on redhat as a reboot in Windows, and now you're looking at the same amount of work per security notice.
Now your question is: Which vendor do I feel is more pro-actively protecting my security? (You obviously care about it, because if you didn't you just wouldn't patch).
Slashdot Mirror
I honestly don't think there's as much harvesting going on as people think - some websites, certainly, but I imagine the main source of spam lists if companies who get the addresses (semi-)legitimatly and sell them.
The heavy spammers (the 150 that make up 90% of all US spam) aren't stupid people - harvesting a place like slashdot, for example, probably isn't worth your time, both because of the server-side protections Slashdot has against spiders, and because the ratio of false addresses is probably higher on slashdot than 90% of other websites.
By some reports, and certainly in some areas, spam traffic outnumbers legitimate internet traffic. That's just ridiculous. It's a stupid practice that should be shut down.
Or ship-to-ship combat as depicted in The Forever War, by Joe Haldeman. You shot your missles or whatever, your opponent shot his missles, you both shot countermeasures, and then you waited 3 weeks to see if you were going to die. And it was all handled by computers, because the humans were unconcious in special fluid tanks to handle the acceleration.
Terminus was the game I was thinking of in my earlier post - I like how you can adjust the physics depending on how you feel like playing. The gameplay is basically the same as Freelancer - you have a ship, you get missions, you fly around, that sort of thing.
There's a great game (which, damnit, I can't remember the name of right now) which is a sort of fighter-mission type game - exactly the same as Freelancer, now that I think of it. The cool thing is that you can adjust the physics from "video game" to "full Newtonian" depending on how you feel like playing.
They can't ASK for legal reasons? I respect Slashdot not wanting to deal with the issues surrounding mirrors, but that's just stupid.
The entire scientific community knows all about the long term effect of microwaves. The ones from wifi can't even penetrate your skin. You can find plenty of scare-tactic information as well as rebuttals from google.
They'd probably nail you as an arms smuggler for "exporting" WEP.
Something you might find interesting is that, while it does draw the correlations you mention, and argues convincinly in support of it's conclusions, it also notes that the shows we tend to think of as the more harmfull are not neccesarily the ones that the more aggressive people are watching. While they don't provide a breakdown or sample of shows and the way they score them, if they apply the criteria listed fairly and to all tv entertainment, then sports (especially gladitorial sports like boxing) and news would rate very high as "violent TV".
As with most studies of this nature, it's certainly not conclusive, nor should it be taken as some sort of gospel. It's an information point, nothing more.
I've got personal experience with it, actually - I went to an alternative high school without mandatory attendance and with variable credit. Students were treated as equals and adults, not as children who needed to be regulated and controlled.
Some kids couldn't handle it and had to go back to the regular high school (even me, for a semester), but most did fine with it. Scholarships, SAT scores, and college acceptance was much better than the regular high school (in the same small town).
It's even simpler than that. Kids like to wrestle. Sometimes kids get hurt. Sometimes, sadly, the're hurt very seriously or die. The fact that he was using a move he saw in WWF is irrelevent. It was an accident during a childs wrestling match, that's all.
I know people who're obsessed with pro sports. They'll rant to the point of violence about the performance or lack thereof of some athlete. This is the exact same impulse that causes some 19 year old to paint the walls of his room black and start wearing paleface. It's identification with a fantasy, a way of escaping from stress in your regular life, and a way of acting out dreams you can't fulfill.
On a side note, I've never been in a war but I seriously doubt it sounds anything like a movie or battlefield 1942 (unless you're watching it on Fox, anyway. Stupid fucks).
Never happen. The US military learned it's lesson very well during Vietnam, and you'll never see the kind of footage that you saw during that war. The military keeps very strict control of battlefield reporters.
Sniper rifle. Or sneak out when they aren't racing and put remote controlled spike strips under the street. Heck, build a shaped charge and just blow a huge pothole - road funds being the way they are, it'll take 2 years for the city to fix it.
Just for the brain-damaged here: It's the mans fucking NAME. And your example would not be a violation of trademark law, since Linux (the OS) and Linux(the porn company) operate in different industries. If you're going to be a mouthy fuckwit, at least do it with something you aren't wrong about.
Then you're lucky.
Everyone deciding on an individual basis where to put money is basically a pure democracy (doesn't matter what you vote for if there's no money behind it). On top of that, it's a democracy based on wealth, not on votes - a system like the one you're describing result in an almost instant death of the middle class, and an incredible split in the distribution of wealth.
Back to welfare - I know it's annoying when you see people or adds about the crack addicted woman who has babies she mistreats for a bigger check. But, in truth, no only are those people the minority, the money spent on them is an infitismal fration of your taxes. I work for a state agency and the money we've wasted on unneccesary software licenses this year alone would feed probably a thousand welfare mothers. And even that is a drop in our budget.
The reason why this is played up is because it's an easy thing to get emotional about - if you really want to talk about money going where it shouldn't, look at pork barrel bills and (especially) military contracting. The money there thats basically given away is exponentially more than every welfare cheat in America manages to steal.
I'm not saying it's okay, but I'm saying focus your attention where it matters. From a more pragmatic point of view, it's probably cheaper to let people cheat than to spend the money you'd need to add the beuarocracy neccesary to track down the people cheating.
I've beem facing massive resistance to bringing open source (especially linux) to our company, not because of zealotry per se, although that is there, but because we don't have anyone skilled in it onboard. The total cost of switching would be considerable.
Sadly, many people DO want a yes man, because when the shit hits the fan they've got the umbrella. Management politics are fucked :P People who actually do work don't want yes men.
It's a matter of semantics, and you might get companies that call people consultants when they're doing contracting work, but in general usage, it's almost always used as the grandparent said, and I think we should maintain that usage, even if the legal title is something different. No matter what you're called, if you're hired to provide your expertise and information, you're a consultant, and if you're hired to complete a task, then you're a contractor. Simple as that.
This is exactly why anytime your client goes against your advice you should get it in writing. Otherwise it's your word against thiers. If you're a really GOOD consultant, you might even walk out if they do such a thing - after all, they hired your for your expertise.
Now your question is: Which vendor do I feel is more pro-actively protecting my security? (You obviously care about it, because if you didn't you just wouldn't patch).
OS X is based on BSD which is (duh) BSD licensed, and they are contributing thier changes back to KHTML.