TFA says that he burned it to a CD, so if the CD came from stock purchased by his employer than it is technically correct to say he stole the code.

Absolutely. The difference is simple, too: it's marketing if you "love" something that cannot love you back.

Thanks. I address this in my followup post, posted as a reply to self. And I also left the "insufficient tidal effect" BH mass as an exercise for the reader, for any arbitrary definition of insufficient!

Just a followup: let us assume the largest black hole that we can imagine, ingesting the smallest star that we can imagine, in the interest of minimising the tidal forces on the star. In this extreme hypothetical case of no tidal force on the star until it contacts the event horizon, you will agree that the star will have also drag down with it minimal material from the accretion disk, and certainly not all of it. Now imagine what a star passing through the remaining material does to the distribution of that material. You can see that even in this extreme example of the star going "quietly" the resulting effect on the accretion disk is anything but quiet.

Who was your lecturer? Pick a mass, any reasonable mass for a black hole, and calculate it's Schwarzschild radius. Now add the diameter of a star, any star, to that radius and calculate the gravity field at that distance from the center of the black hole. Do you notice the difference? That tidal force will tear any star apart. It will tear iron apart.

Furthermore, it is very unreasonable to assume that the only object orbiting the black hole is the single ingested star. Most (all?) black holes have large quantities of mass orbiting them in accretion disks, the ingested star will of course disturb matter in the accretion disk. I will leave to your own imagination why the ingested star's influence on the accretion disk will be anything but 'quiet'. As to the assertion that afterwards "the singularity no longer has a big accretion disk" it is likely that the ingested star leaves more of its own material in the accretion disk than that which it drags down with it. Hint for calculating it: stars rotate.

...drugs, cigarettes, liquor, gambling, lottery tickets, flat screens, cell phones, junk food, etc...

I think a good question might be "Why are non-technical "hiring managers" hiring for technical positions?

You could not have more thoroughly failed to understand what I said. If it were spoken verbally I could understand that, but it is text. You can re-read it as many times as it takes to comprehend it. Perhaps you would like to take a few deep, relaxing breaths and become nice and calm, maybe think of your own personal happy place? That way you can shut down your emotions and activate your logic and reason to let those do the thinking? Section by section, then:

If Youtube wants to say "we will selectively censor what we dislike depending on our mood at that moment on that day, and not according to a policy that is applied equally to everyone", that would be different. Youtube has made no such claim. What they have claimed is that they will not tolerate hate speech.

They were given multiple examples of hate speech. They censored the one that wasn't even intended to be hateful while allowing replies that were specifically designed to make that child feel bad. If they wish to rewrite their policy so that it reads "no hate speech allowed ... except the hate speech we decide to accept" that would be different. That would be fucked up, but at least it would not be hypocritical.

There are only two logically consistent, non-hypocritical way to handle things: either censor both the girl AND her hateful responders, or censor none of them. I don't care what emotions your endocrine system is making you to feel at this moment. I also don't care if you personally favor one kind of hate speech over another kind. That's the simple truth.

I do not believe this sixteen-year-old girl is a legislator. Neither is she in an executive position where she can veto a bill or sign that bill into law. She is not trying to pass any law. She is merely trying to express an opinion. Do you see how simple that is, and how ridiculous you are for suggesting otherwise?

This is why you cannot separate your emotion from reason here. You have this desperate need to make the girl into a figurehead representing some radical Christians who really do try to pass oppressive laws. Naturally you then hate this creation you have made. That is why you want her to suffer. That is why you like one kind of hate speech, namely that which makes her suffer, while disliking another. You feel so justified applying your double standard because you really don't like her. It's still a double standard.

You are just as much of a hypocrite as Google. Don't play this game with me. I see things quite clearly and am not someone you can blind with emotion.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

At some point the copyright cartels need to learn to be satisifed with the billions they are already making. Why, if they quit spending so many tens of millions to run anti-piracy campaigns, filtering, lawsuits against grandmas and children, and to purchase new draconian laws, they'd have even more cash in their pockets!

And who says old people have left the workforce?