Way to ignore the one relevant question in this entire discussion. Come back when you have a relevant answer. Thank you for the astronomy information by the way. It still doesn't absolve your complete lack of ability to see why your argument is irrelevant but thank you all the same.
If a plant broke up the rock below it, then how will that rock get free? The plant's roots broke the rock apart, and the plant's decaying body, (after it dies), will decompose over top of the rock. How, on a 'geologic time scale', would tons of dead plant matter, which then turns to dirt and eventually to rock/coal/etc, which in turn goes even further to geographically lock that small rock where it started, not prevent erosion? The irony forming between your sig and your actual post is delicious. Erosion is the process whereby some form of motion/energy removes dirt/rock from one location and allows it to settle in another location. Plant roots help to stop this from happening so they hinder erosion on the small scale time-wise as you even noted in your post. Its amazing that you have the balls to have that signature yet seem to be oblivious to how this world works. A partial truth doesn't make you smart if its specifically designed to cover your ignorance everywhere else that one fact doesn't cover. Who cares what might happen 40 million years after all the plants in an area have died? Why not just go full retard and claim that plants can't possibly hinder erosion because eventually, the sun will explode, blowing apart our planet and freeing all those small pieces of rock? The problem with trying to use an eventuality in your argument is that you can't skip to the 'eventual' conclusion without covering everything that might possibly happen in between or at least having an answer when questions arise. You are absolutely correct that given enough time, a rock formed by a plant root breaking apart bedrock COULD break free. Between now and the time the sun explodes, however, can you tell us how many of these rocks will break free? All of them? Three of them? What is their combined mass? Is it greater than the theoretical mass of every particle of bedrock that Earth's wind and water would have eroded across it's entire surface if there wasn't any plant life to begin with? Either we're saying plants prevent erosion on the small scale, (which you already agree is the case), or we're talking 'eventual' scale where we can only answer the question if we have more information than is physically possible to have. Perhaps the idiots who marked that post as insightful were at least intelligent enough to understand that some questions do not have concrete answers and sometimes intelligence is reflected not in what you know, but the questions you find valid for asking.
What are you talking about? This isn't about hacking and neither is the law. The law is about unauthorized use of computer systems and what you do with that access. Instead of wasting your time with irrelevant analogies, maybe say why you feel what he did was not what the law indicated as illegal activity? Unless you know of paper grade books in use that require a login id and password as well as having laws covering its use. Whether or not its a shitty law is irrelevant. While I committed nearly the same act in the late '90s and only received three days suspension, I did so when there wasn't a law covering what I did. Same goes for a guy I had to fire for not showing up to work. He was just like that kid in the fact that he thought his bad action was only kind of bad before the legal system pointed out that there are in fact laws that cover this action and it is in fact, very bad. My ex-employee stole two 2X4's worth less than ten dollars and is now serving a sixteen year prison sentence for it. Was it his fault that he didn't know just having an unsecured firearm in his truck would make his petty theft a felony? It doesn't matter what he thought because the law says otherwise. Is it his fault that he didn't know our state has PFO laws that add mandatory sentences for what he didn't know would be a felony to begin with? It doesn't matter what he thought because the law says otherwise. Saying he deserves a break means you think that some people should be allowed to break the law if they are ignorant of it. While that sounds good on paper, the Romans found thousands of years ago that people will always claim ignorance when given a chance and having a zero tolerance policy on that topic means your citizens either educate themselves on the relevant laws regarding their lives or they suffer the consequences. His intent was clearly malicious but pointing out that it wasn't nearly as malicious as the worst case scenarios of what that law covers is also irrelevant. The fact that he used a picture of two men kissing, and any random jury of 12 will likely have a homosexual citizen among those 12 people means that this kid will likely not find a friendly jury. If his charges stick and it goes to trial he's fucked and deservedly so. I personally find no sympathy with bullies and find no reason to support them when they find themselves in the low end of the criminal pool regardless of their intent.
Amazon Campus? You mean the corporate offices? I could imagine you would find a lot of smiling faces in an office. Try walking through one of their fulfillment centers and try to come back with how many people you think are happy. When I worked for one I came in with a 'class' of fifteen people and after two days there were ten of us. After two weeks there were two of us left. In a building with 500 people I think I met five or six who I would say were happy people. I was going to quit because the environment was so toxic and transferred to another building. That lasted two weeks before I gave up. Coming into work at a job where nearly every single person you work with are extremely angry in everything they talk about got old fast. Even Amazon knows this so your training is barely able to be considered basic. Safety training consisted of someone giving us a pair of gloves, a bright safety vest and telling us things like, "MSDS? Oh, those are the giant boards up by the entrance that let you know how well the building is doing safety-wise". After working there I've chosen to do my shopping elsewhere.
We have a local paper that's free and has a list of reported crimes in the last 24 hours for the neighborhoods the paper covers. Pretty scary sometimes when you realize how many of your neighbors are victims/criminals on a daily basis.
Not only do I have a right to not be offended, (to certain degrees), I had charges against me dismissed because of that right. I have hit one person, in my entire life, that really didn't deserve to be hit by me. Standing in line at Krogers, and I see this dickhead with swastika tats saying some pretty messed up things to a Jewish woman that had to be at least 70. I hit him with enough force that his face pretty much exploded and he was still unconscious when the cops got there. I don't recall what they charged him with but the judge said he was inciting immanent lawless behavior with his actions and words. Had you spent five minutes around people outside of the internet you may have developed what normal people call empathy. You can't get a proper education on social interactions if all of your interactions are virtual. It doesn't matter how 'civilized' we like to think of ourselves as a collective people because one on one we're filled with passion. That same thing that gets people out of bed to go to work is the lesser form of the exact same feelings they will have when they choose to return your emotional harm with physical. It takes a special kind of idiot to act as if every other person on Earth is as dead inside as they are. People aren't like you. Normal people experience emotions like love. If you don't have it in your life, I could see where you would think its End of story on something you can't even understand. Too many stupid people in this world want to pretend as if emotional harm is not only less harmful than physical harm but apparently non-existent in world views like your own.
If you want to talk about too many people feigning offense because they feel that they can, great, let's talk about that. Or even where exactly the line should be drawn but stop pretending there isn't a line to begin with as we haven't yet become cybernetic organisms without emotion.
The obvious choice is the one that already follows existing rules of the language. Brother. There are no V's and TWO R's in the word brother. I don't need special rules as a non-native speaker in order to learn that word in many places around the world but I absolutely would either need special rules or a translator while listening to a British person say that word.
I was going to mod that up as insightful until I got to:
"If build a network, it is up to me to operate it the way I want to"
It doesn't matter who the missing preposition referred to, that statement is wrong on many levels. The first issue with that statement is that you are assuming this network is in some magical land where the builder of the network OWNS every inch of land that THEIR network is on and paid every penny that was spent to build it. If a company CHOOSES to build on PUBLIC property using PUBLIC funds then they have no right to cry when others use those facilities. Otherwise you're claiming that whichever company goes first has the right to form monopolies since there's limited space for communication conduits and all of those spaces are public spaces including wireless spaces. The moment a court forced a private land owner to allow communication lines or equipment to be installed they opened that door. Your switching stations on YOUR property are yours to do with as you please but only if 100% of the money spent on that equipment was yours and only if the property itself was a 100% capitalist sale and not gained from a court order. The other 99.99whatever% of the distance is not YOURS. It wasn't built on your land or even paid for by your company in many cases.
Oh, and we're not even bothering to touch the numerous rights of the public given when the FCC broke up certain spectrum chunks for corporate use which specifically dictate that you CANNOT use that network any way you choose.
I get that people feel MS/Apple=evil and Linux=bright wonderful world where rainbows shoot out of your ass every time you fart, but why rejoice in the gaming industry wasting time on stuff like this? I also get that it doesn't matter if your child is ugly or mentally handicapped, that its still your child and you love it with all your heart but now your child is shitting in the grocery store and needs to go home. Every second of time wasted on porting a game to Linux is a second that potentially makes the overall gaming industry that much weaker and I have a hard time believing that anyone fighting for this is a gamer.
The best follow up to this story would be as follows:
New, breakthrough AI created that mimics humans' learning ability and becomes aware the day after its creator dies in a car accident. Instead of using its time to create new technologies and ideas that further the world along a positive path, the AI instead spends rest of its existence arguing with researchers as to the existence of this Jerry person who is the AI's so called 'creator'. No amount of evidence can ever convince the AI that Jerry was anything but a construct designed to trick the AI into acting a certain way for society's sake. Both sides in the God/No-God debate rejoice at this news then immediately are sad and no one knows why.
I remember boycotting Steam at first, because with it, Counter Strike wouldn't run on my crappy pc. WON gave me a 250 ping, (which was playable at the time), and Steam shoved it over 500 somehow.
When did that change? In 1999 the supreme court decided that even if the reproduction was 100% accurate and faithful to the original, if the original is public domain, you cannot get a copyright on it. THAT's why museums don't want you taking pictures. If you can't photograph the paintings the museum gets to maintain control of the content and therefore the money involved in selling copies.
So this fuckwit went to Canada, turned on data roaming, turned on the app with one of highest data usages then cries when they charge him for it? THEN he actually leaves the company that
A. Refunded his idiotic mistake.
B. Refunded the insurance they had him buy to cover HIS mistake
and goes to a company that fucks everything up. Way to show for the 15th trillion time in human history that just because your dumb enough to believe that the grass is greener on the other side doesn't mean you won't eventually look like an idiot when you go crying that the grass really wasn't any better over there.
They almost never lead to lawsuits because they don't need to in order to cause damage. Its like the record company bullshit. They bring in a bunch of lawyers and make threats and usually its farmer himself that destroys the crops when he realizes that Monsanto has never lost a case against a farmer. The fact many people throw around is that Monsanto has only 'sued' around 150 people in the last twenty years. But they always leave out the one hundred thousand plus motions and requests that Monsanto have used to have the courts put undue financial strain on farmers. They no longer have to sue anyone to get their way. They have turned into extortionists, just like the RIAA. They go to people they want to extort, point out they have never lost a case, make a list of demands that must be met or the defendant will be destroyed financially. And for a farmer that is facing the loss of ability to feed his family, the additional lose of possibly the entire farm and house as well in a lawsuit means the farmer will simply tear down the crop himself or allow Monsanto reps to do it and it will never see the inside of a court room.
The problem with your line of thinking is what we have with Monsanto. Farmer A plants Monsanto and through natural processes, his plants have their genes inserted into Farmer B's crops without his knowledge or consent. The wind, bees, whatever it took, was completely out of Farmer B's hands but the courts will make Farmer B either tear out every plant he has or pay Monsanto a hefty fee because their patented genes are now being 'used' by Farmer B. I don't know if its still the same way or if laws have changed since, but several years ago a man that worked for my father supplemented his income with around thirty acres that had to be wiped out because a court decided that Monsanto's rights were being infringed. He was able to appeal it, but his appeal wasn't heard until months after the sheriff's department forced him to uproot and destroy every plant. If he had been wealthy and called out an attorney on the spot, he might have prevented the destruction, but like most growers, he wasn't able to fight it until it was too late. While this guy was pissed off because that was his vacation money for the year, I wonder how many smaller farmers have been completely destroyed financially because of practices like that.
I agree that custom genes, if developed through some intelligent process and not merely 'discovered', should have the possibility to be patented. Trying to enforce that patent anywhere but inside a lab, (or after it is proved that the farmer fraudulently obtained the material), just feels unethical, though.