I feel I should point out that you knew it was illegal to drink under-age, and you decided to do it anyway... so regardless of whether the law is right, you still chose to break it, and therefore you aren't really in a position to complain about having to deal with the consequences when you got caught.
Two problems with that. I will not obey a law that is not right. It was even less 'right' in that I was only in the area to see that no one tried to drive. I was collecting car keys and I didn't drink a single drop of alcohol. I was charged, because they felt that by me serving as a gatekeeper to the cars, I was 'facilitating' underage drinking.
So that law I 'broke'.
Now, that is completely tangential to the situation that the concept of these limitations is to protect minors, when in fact I wasn't even a minor at the time, yet I was being 'protected'.
Again the irony was that my better protection (stopping people from driving drunk) served to get me charged with a crime that I didn't even commit (underage drinking).
I wonder what the US teachers have done that makes their organizations deserve this ridiculous level of hatred. FWIW, banning unions, and in particular banning any one union, would interfere with the right to assembly in most sane jurisdictions.
You call it ridiculous, but judging from the way you phrased your question, you are not familiar with the US educational system.
For a lot of people (who aren't teachers) the union is simply a regular union. It serves the interests of the teachers and not the students. Sure, the interests of the public and the students sometimes coincide with the teacher's union, but that is just circumstance. If it came down to a zero-sum decision in which the teachers were on one side, and the students were on the other, I would expect the union to side with the teachers (and they should, since they are a teacher's union).
You also end up with a situation in which it is often a national union vs the 4 part-time or volunteer school board members.
The main vitriol often comes about as a result of the fact that they are a professional union. As a result there are often cases in which the union is siding on the side of teachers who have not acted in the best interests of the students (not their job).
If all things were equal, and the union were formed from scratch today, I wouldn't harbor any real ill will, but I certainly wouldn't default to being on their side at the onset.
But remember this: since being appointed to the US supreme court, John G. Roberts has always sided with authority. In all major cases, he's supported the prosecution over the defendant, the state over the condemned, the executive branch over the legislative, and the corporate defendant over the individual plaintiff.
People decry ageism in regards to minors, while leaving out the fact that it also protects them. There are very few cases where a minor is held accountable for their actions in serious crimes and typically crimes committed by a minor are sealed and not permanent
Yeah I felt real protected when at age 20 I was charged with underage drinking. I faced a mandatory suspension of my license (even though I wasn't within 2 miles of a car) a large fine, mandatory alcohol counselling courses (paid by me) and potential jail time. That charge is open to whomever wants to do a background check on me. I have to report it EVERY TIME UNTIL I DIE whenever my security clearance comes up for renewal (no limitations on alcohol charges/arrests there).
You tell me that it's for my own protection. It is so nice to know that the government is there to control me for my own good.
If you don't like what the *AA produces, well, I wouldn't think you'd be too pissed off about having to wait 100 years before getting to freely distribute their crap.
If it was just them, it wouldn't be a problem, but eventually EVERYTHING is owned by somebody for 100+ years. The result is that it doesn't matter if you don't like what the *AA labels produce, but that everything gets tied down.
Even worse, what is owned by one person is usually sold and ends up being in some giant corporations vaults which they will NEVER release until it expires or is sold again.
Please remember that the country-wide ban on Wolfenstein in Germany just meant that every single game-playing teenager in the country had a pirated copy, and that was before the Internet was widespread. A ban won't stop children getting the games, it will just stop adults getting them legally.
If enough bans get passed, people simply won't MAKE the games since there will be no market. That's one of the bigger issues. I agree with your point, but it isn't the right one to make.
Do you want to hear a detailed description of what an infected hemmorhoid looks like? Did you hear the one about the time this guy had eggs laid in his skin by a parasite in the Amazon? What about a sex story that revolved around those topics?
Those are two things which MOST people, in fact, a significant majority of the people do NOT want to hear or see. If I published a book containing pictures of infected hemmorhoids, I'm pretty sure you would NOT purchase it, nor would many people. It would be a very small minority of people. Should it be banned because it is something that you find distasteful even though while it covers REAL topics, the story itself is imaginary?
Disturbing, gross, and unpopular, but would you ban it?
Now, if I designed a video game in which the sole purpose is to jaywalk as many times as possible without getting hit by a car. It consists of nothing but a simulation of what normally would be illegal behavior.
Should that be banned?
The only reasonable line to draw is the one that treats everyone as the arbiters of their own intellectual consumption.
And also, the monetary fine ($175,000 per song?) was set by Congress, and Congress must obey the Supreme Law contained within the Constitution. IMHO Congresses' fine is nullified by the constitution.
The Supreme Court has failed. Time and time again it will use the most tenuous rationale to justify any act by congress. If it is a company or state government, you MIGHT see some sort of constitutional protection, but if it is an act by the Federal Government and doesn't deal directly with the major clauses that they haven't figured out how to ignore, then you can be fairly confident that the Supreme Court will support it.
At this point, the Supreme Court has justified that Congress may regulate ANYTHING as long as they try to regulate it.
Now isn't that amusing in that they have turned "Authority to regulate interstate commerce" to mean that if we attempt to regulate it, it becomes interstate commerce, and therefore we can regulate it.
Same thing with Copyrights and the monetary fine. The Supreme Court in the past has said: "If we can find any use of the punishment elsewhere and people didn't immediately storm the Bastille, then it isn't unusual" It has also said, since Congress was granted the authority, they could decide to make it a 100 trillion dollar fine and we would find it to be constitutional.
And what about those who voted or spoke against this? Should they be punished? Should you be held personally responsible for every dishonest thing someone you voted for does?
No. You vote them out of office, and levy criminal charges against the person who committed the crime.
Unless the taxpayers feel the hit, they are unlikely to vote anyone out of office.
Now how the hell could you add on top of that? We are already at "stay connected to the internet and have the game send data to us for as long as you play". Data you, of course, do not get to review or even know the contents of
We keep your credit card details from when you purchased the game. We will periodically charge you a use fee as well as penalties should your copy fail validation.
Seems to me like a smarter idea would have been to buy a phone that suited your requirements rather than buying something else, then bitching about how it wasn't what you wanted.
That might be smart, if I had access to several million dollars to design and produce my own phone that met all of my requirements. Or I could find the system that met most of my requirements, and didn't require me to go to some magical fairy land to buy.
Did you just never use a phone until the perfect model came out? No you made due with what you had and what was available.
It's interesting that despite the risks of bricking the device or getting locked out, people still prefer to buy a locked down iPhone and go through the hassle of jailbreaking it rather than look to other devices that offer you the same features without having to resort to hacks.
At the time, there weren't other devices with the same features without having to resort to hacks. There were some that got close, and I owned a HTC6700. Today I might not make the same decision.
Uh you can use the internet and ipod at the same time without jailbreaking. Do you really have an iphone???
What about all those other apps which are not the built in ipod music player?
I'm not sure if it is the case now (since I've had my software working perfectly since I first jailbroke it) but programs like Pandora and last.FM were not permitted to run in the background if you closed them. It is possible that isn't the case now, but that is truly beside the point.
It didn't work, and jailbreaking it fixed that. If Apple is catching up now, that's not exactly a selling point.
How do you put music onto your phone without iTunes? Even the 3rd-party apps that let you "copy" files to the iPhone still require iTunes to be installed, and still can only copy files that iTunes permits, into locations iTunes allows.
Initially I used SSH and created a directory where I just dumped my pre-arranged/sized music folder. Then I used one of the applications from Cydia (can't remember the name sorry). It could play files from a directory and didn't rely on Apple's absurd directory structure/database.
Since then, I've found another program (Sharepod? Podshare? something like that) which I don't know if it requires iTunes, but it seems to manage the files on the iphone quite well.
My main complaint with iTunes comes from actually using it. If another program uses it while remaining transparent to me I don't really mind as much. Of course I'd prefer not to have it on my machine at all.
Here's a rather silly question - why did you buy it in the first place?
In its default state, I wouldn't have, and I didn't. I waited until it was possible to hack the device, then I purchased it once I saw that it wasn't a flakey hack and it was established that I wouldn't brick the device by breathing on it the wrong way. At that point, when I considered the total package (jailbroken iphone), it WAS what I wanted in a device since the alternatives (Verizon, Tmobile, Sprint) were not actually viable alternatives.
So in short, the unjailbroken iPhone was not something I wanted. The Jailbroken iPhone was.
Ummm... Apple has never started making money hand over fist with iTunes. Income from iTunes and the iPhone app store together are a negligible portion of Apple's revenue. Seriously, they both barely make more than the operational cost.
It must suck for a company to have a component of its business operating at a profit.
I've jailbroken my phone, and I have not placed a single app that was available on the appstore on my phone without purchasing it from the appstore.
I jailbroke my phone so I could get into the file system of the phone because I absolutely hate using iTunes to get files on and off my device. I also liked to be able to multitask and not have my preferred music player stop working because I wanted to look up something on the internet.
In fact, if I couldn't jailbreak my phone I wouldn't have purchased it in the first place since in its default state, it's a pretty crappy device for my needs.
It offered me the option to use Firefox's location services. Curious, I let it, and despite being logged in via VPN, it accurately pulled up my location to within a few hundred feet. Still not exactly sure what it's doing to figure that out, but boy, that's scary...
I'm not sure why you are surprised. Now, I haven't worked in IP networking for a while, but I don't see how a VPN would have any effect on what you did.
Lets say the termination point for your VPN is a server at your house. IP A.B.C.D You connect to the Hotel's wifi and get assigned IP W.X.Y.Z
You establish your VPN by whatever means you use. You are now using your home server as a proxy with the data between you and your server encrypted.
Now for standard advertisements which try to 'local' advertise to you (Find deals in YourCity/ZIPCODE), they would likely return results which are based on the location of IP A.B.C.D, your home server.
But when you connected to google maps, and it ASKED you for your location information, this is what I expect happened:
Google: Hey, what is your location information? (Sent to your home server ABCD, encrypted and relayed to you at IP WXYZ) You: Sure here it is. (Your computer then filled in it's LOCAL, ie hotel, IP address and other information , encrypted at WXYZ, decrypted at ABCD, and sent to google) Google: Based on the information you sent us, here is the public information regarding the location of that IP address, and we will stick it on a picture of a map for you.
Again, it's been a while since I dealt with VPNs, but there doesn't seem to be anything surprising going on here.
no, if someone is making money by providing service from state to state it IS interstate commerce. It's not a wild card, its critical to have separate states that need to fall under one umbrella.
If you can define someone "Growing their own grain on their own farm to feed their own chickens " Interstate Commerce, then I'd say it's damned sure a wild card.
A giant rock has been on Earth for forty years, and just now they're discovering that it's contains organic compounds? Um...did it fall directly into a controlled vacuum?
If you find organic molecules which do not exist on Earth OTHER than on this meteorite, the likely conclusion is that the meteorite is the source, not the recipient.
Practically speaking, the evolutionary route would likely be that their wing beat frequency would change - faster or slower enough to not attract the attention of the laser (since that's what the poster above indicates is used for targeting).
Evolution is not faster than intelligence in this regard though. After a brief period of time simple testing would indicate that the system letting too many mosquitos through. An analysis will determine that the female's frequency is higher or lower than what they are looking for. A simple software update is fielded to the units and the advantage is lost again.
However, looking at the videos it appeared that the darker sections of the wings vaporized first, you might see a loss of this coloration in future generations if it helped a few survive But that might harm the mosquitos in other ways as predation increases due to reduced camo.
It is possible that the females would decrease in size until they were similar enough to males, but then the system could just include ALL mosquitos. All of this would happen at a much faster rate than evolution could cope with. As an above poster said, it might just be that mosquitos lose their 'taste' for humans and seek out less deadly hosts.
IF that is what happens, then the system would be a HUGE success.
Most likely the evolution will be a breed of them that don't fly near people. Net win for us.
I hope so. It also made me wonder about Poison Ivy. That plant is damned lucky that it is hardy, because I can't think of a worse thing to happen (evolutionarily speaking) than to develop a defense which is exceptionally annoying to a sentient creature with access to landscaping equipment.
I'm sure it worked great as a defense for creatures whose only real option was to 'Avoid that greasy trefoil', but once you add a machete and herbicides into the mix it's amazing how fast a true advantage is turned into a significant disadvantage. I hate that plant so much that I'll cut it off at the roots if I'm just walking through the forest and happen to see it.
Odd considering that other plants (and domesticated animals ancestors) won the genetic lottery simply by having a useful feature which humanity exploited.
Slashdot Mirror
I feel I should point out that you knew it was illegal to drink under-age, and you decided to do it anyway... so regardless of whether the law is right, you still chose to break it, and therefore you aren't really in a position to complain about having to deal with the consequences when you got caught.
Two problems with that. I will not obey a law that is not right. It was even less 'right' in that I was only in the area to see that no one tried to drive. I was collecting car keys and I didn't drink a single drop of alcohol. I was charged, because they felt that by me serving as a gatekeeper to the cars, I was 'facilitating' underage drinking.
So that law I 'broke'.
Now, that is completely tangential to the situation that the concept of these limitations is to protect minors, when in fact I wasn't even a minor at the time, yet I was being 'protected'.
Again the irony was that my better protection (stopping people from driving drunk) served to get me charged with a crime that I didn't even commit (underage drinking).
I wonder what the US teachers have done that makes their organizations deserve this ridiculous level of hatred. FWIW, banning unions, and in particular banning any one union, would interfere with the right to assembly in most sane jurisdictions.
You call it ridiculous, but judging from the way you phrased your question, you are not familiar with the US educational system.
For a lot of people (who aren't teachers) the union is simply a regular union. It serves the interests of the teachers and not the students. Sure, the interests of the public and the students sometimes coincide with the teacher's union, but that is just circumstance. If it came down to a zero-sum decision in which the teachers were on one side, and the students were on the other, I would expect the union to side with the teachers (and they should, since they are a teacher's union).
You also end up with a situation in which it is often a national union vs the 4 part-time or volunteer school board members.
The main vitriol often comes about as a result of the fact that they are a professional union. As a result there are often cases in which the union is siding on the side of teachers who have not acted in the best interests of the students (not their job).
If all things were equal, and the union were formed from scratch today, I wouldn't harbor any real ill will, but I certainly wouldn't default to being on their side at the onset.
But remember this: since being appointed to the US supreme court, John G. Roberts has always sided with authority. In all major cases, he's supported the prosecution over the defendant, the state over the condemned, the executive branch over the legislative, and the corporate defendant over the individual plaintiff.
Are you sure about that?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
People decry ageism in regards to minors, while leaving out the fact that it also protects them. There are very few cases where a minor is held accountable for their actions in serious crimes and typically crimes committed by a minor are sealed and not permanent
Yeah I felt real protected when at age 20 I was charged with underage drinking. I faced a mandatory suspension of my license (even though I wasn't within 2 miles of a car) a large fine, mandatory alcohol counselling courses (paid by me) and potential jail time. That charge is open to whomever wants to do a background check on me. I have to report it EVERY TIME UNTIL I DIE whenever my security clearance comes up for renewal (no limitations on alcohol charges/arrests there).
You tell me that it's for my own protection. It is so nice to know that the government is there to control me for my own good.
If you don't like what the *AA produces, well, I wouldn't think you'd be too pissed off about having to wait 100 years before getting to freely distribute their crap.
If it was just them, it wouldn't be a problem, but eventually EVERYTHING is owned by somebody for 100+ years. The result is that it doesn't matter if you don't like what the *AA labels produce, but that everything gets tied down.
Even worse, what is owned by one person is usually sold and ends up being in some giant corporations vaults which they will NEVER release until it expires or is sold again.
Please remember that the country-wide ban on Wolfenstein in Germany just meant that every single game-playing teenager in the country had a pirated copy, and that was before the Internet was widespread. A ban won't stop children getting the games, it will just stop adults getting them legally.
If enough bans get passed, people simply won't MAKE the games since there will be no market. That's one of the bigger issues. I agree with your point, but it isn't the right one to make.
You don't need a majority for that - look at the old south africa.
In no way does that disprove that the majority can do all of the things he claimed in a democracy.
Do you want to hear a detailed description of what an infected hemmorhoid looks like?
Did you hear the one about the time this guy had eggs laid in his skin by a parasite in the Amazon? What about a sex story that revolved around those topics?
Those are two things which MOST people, in fact, a significant majority of the people do NOT want to hear or see. If I published a book containing pictures of infected hemmorhoids, I'm pretty sure you would NOT purchase it, nor would many people. It would be a very small minority of people. Should it be banned because it is something that you find distasteful even though while it covers REAL topics, the story itself is imaginary?
Disturbing, gross, and unpopular, but would you ban it?
Now, if I designed a video game in which the sole purpose is to jaywalk as many times as possible without getting hit by a car. It consists of nothing but a simulation of what normally would be illegal behavior.
Should that be banned?
The only reasonable line to draw is the one that treats everyone as the arbiters of their own intellectual consumption.
And also, the monetary fine ($175,000 per song?) was set by Congress, and Congress must obey the Supreme Law contained within the Constitution. IMHO Congresses' fine is nullified by the constitution.
The Supreme Court has failed. Time and time again it will use the most tenuous rationale to justify any act by congress. If it is a company or state government, you MIGHT see some sort of constitutional protection, but if it is an act by the Federal Government and doesn't deal directly with the major clauses that they haven't figured out how to ignore, then you can be fairly confident that the Supreme Court will support it.
At this point, the Supreme Court has justified that Congress may regulate ANYTHING as long as they try to regulate it.
Now isn't that amusing in that they have turned "Authority to regulate interstate commerce" to mean that if we attempt to regulate it, it becomes interstate commerce, and therefore we can regulate it.
Same thing with Copyrights and the monetary fine. The Supreme Court in the past has said: "If we can find any use of the punishment elsewhere and people didn't immediately storm the Bastille, then it isn't unusual" It has also said, since Congress was granted the authority, they could decide to make it a 100 trillion dollar fine and we would find it to be constitutional.
The Supreme Court is broken.
And what about those who voted or spoke against this? Should they be punished? Should you be held personally responsible for every dishonest thing someone you voted for does?
No. You vote them out of office, and levy criminal charges against the person who committed the crime.
Unless the taxpayers feel the hit, they are unlikely to vote anyone out of office.
Now how the hell could you add on top of that? We are already at "stay connected to the internet and have the game send data to us for as long as you play". Data you, of course, do not get to review or even know the contents of
We keep your credit card details from when you purchased the game. We will periodically charge you a use fee as well as penalties should your copy fail validation.
Seems to me like a smarter idea would have been to buy a phone that suited your requirements rather than buying something else, then bitching about how it wasn't what you wanted.
That might be smart, if I had access to several million dollars to design and produce my own phone that met all of my requirements. Or I could find the system that met most of my requirements, and didn't require me to go to some magical fairy land to buy.
Did you just never use a phone until the perfect model came out? No you made due with what you had and what was available.
We were talking about a non-jailbroken iPhone.
Didn't notice that until later. I've got to mess with Slashdot's settings as it collapsed that post. It would be nice to know what he used.
It's interesting that despite the risks of bricking the device or getting locked out, people still prefer to buy a locked down iPhone and go through the hassle of jailbreaking it rather than look to other devices that offer you the same features without having to resort to hacks.
At the time, there weren't other devices with the same features without having to resort to hacks. There were some that got close, and I owned a HTC6700. Today I might not make the same decision.
Uh you can use the internet and ipod at the same time without jailbreaking.
Do you really have an iphone???
What about all those other apps which are not the built in ipod music player?
I'm not sure if it is the case now (since I've had my software working perfectly since I first jailbroke it) but programs like Pandora and last.FM were not permitted to run in the background if you closed them. It is possible that isn't the case now, but that is truly beside the point.
It didn't work, and jailbreaking it fixed that. If Apple is catching up now, that's not exactly a selling point.
"The Apple iPhone, now it works!"
How do you put music onto your phone without iTunes? Even the 3rd-party apps that let you "copy" files to the iPhone still require iTunes to be installed, and still can only copy files that iTunes permits, into locations iTunes allows.
Initially I used SSH and created a directory where I just dumped my pre-arranged/sized music folder. Then I used one of the applications from Cydia (can't remember the name sorry). It could play files from a directory and didn't rely on Apple's absurd directory structure/database.
Since then, I've found another program (Sharepod? Podshare? something like that) which I don't know if it requires iTunes, but it seems to manage the files on the iphone quite well.
My main complaint with iTunes comes from actually using it. If another program uses it while remaining transparent to me I don't really mind as much. Of course I'd prefer not to have it on my machine at all.
Here's a rather silly question - why did you buy it in the first place?
In its default state, I wouldn't have, and I didn't. I waited until it was possible to hack the device, then I purchased it once I saw that it wasn't a flakey hack and it was established that I wouldn't brick the device by breathing on it the wrong way. At that point, when I considered the total package (jailbroken iphone), it WAS what I wanted in a device since the alternatives (Verizon, Tmobile, Sprint) were not actually viable alternatives.
So in short, the unjailbroken iPhone was not something I wanted. The Jailbroken iPhone was.
Ummm... Apple has never started making money hand over fist with iTunes. Income from iTunes and the iPhone app store together are a negligible portion of Apple's revenue. Seriously, they both barely make more than the operational cost.
It must suck for a company to have a component of its business operating at a profit.
I'll add my experience:
I've jailbroken my phone, and I have not placed a single app that was available on the appstore on my phone without purchasing it from the appstore.
I jailbroke my phone so I could get into the file system of the phone because I absolutely hate using iTunes to get files on and off my device. I also liked to be able to multitask and not have my preferred music player stop working because I wanted to look up something on the internet.
In fact, if I couldn't jailbreak my phone I wouldn't have purchased it in the first place since in its default state, it's a pretty crappy device for my needs.
It offered me the option to use Firefox's location services. Curious, I let it, and despite being logged in via VPN, it accurately pulled up my location to within a few hundred feet. Still not exactly sure what it's doing to figure that out, but boy, that's scary...
I'm not sure why you are surprised. Now, I haven't worked in IP networking for a while, but I don't see how a VPN would have any effect on what you did.
Lets say the termination point for your VPN is a server at your house. IP A.B.C.D
You connect to the Hotel's wifi and get assigned IP W.X.Y.Z
You establish your VPN by whatever means you use. You are now using your home server as a proxy with the data between you and your server encrypted.
Now for standard advertisements which try to 'local' advertise to you (Find deals in YourCity/ZIPCODE), they would likely return results which are based on the location of IP A.B.C.D, your home server.
But when you connected to google maps, and it ASKED you for your location information, this is what I expect happened:
Google: Hey, what is your location information? (Sent to your home server ABCD, encrypted and relayed to you at IP WXYZ)
You: Sure here it is. (Your computer then filled in it's LOCAL, ie hotel, IP address and other information , encrypted at WXYZ, decrypted at ABCD, and sent to google)
Google: Based on the information you sent us, here is the public information regarding the location of that IP address, and we will stick it on a picture of a map for you.
Again, it's been a while since I dealt with VPNs, but there doesn't seem to be anything surprising going on here.
no, if someone is making money by providing service from state to state it IS interstate commerce. It's not a wild card, its critical to have separate states that need to fall under one umbrella.
If you can define someone "Growing their own grain on their own farm to feed their own chickens " Interstate Commerce, then I'd say it's damned sure a wild card.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
A giant rock has been on Earth for forty years, and just now they're discovering that it's contains organic compounds? Um...did it fall directly into a controlled vacuum?
If you find organic molecules which do not exist on Earth OTHER than on this meteorite, the likely conclusion is that the meteorite is the source, not the recipient.
Practically speaking, the evolutionary route would likely be that their wing beat frequency would change - faster or slower enough to not attract the attention of the laser (since that's what the poster above indicates is used for targeting).
Evolution is not faster than intelligence in this regard though. After a brief period of time simple testing would indicate that the system letting too many mosquitos through. An analysis will determine that the female's frequency is higher or lower than what they are looking for. A simple software update is fielded to the units and the advantage is lost again.
However, looking at the videos it appeared that the darker sections of the wings vaporized first, you might see a loss of this coloration in future generations if it helped a few survive But that might harm the mosquitos in other ways as predation increases due to reduced camo.
It is possible that the females would decrease in size until they were similar enough to males, but then the system could just include ALL mosquitos. All of this would happen at a much faster rate than evolution could cope with. As an above poster said, it might just be that mosquitos lose their 'taste' for humans and seek out less deadly hosts.
IF that is what happens, then the system would be a HUGE success.
Most likely the evolution will be a breed of them that don't fly near people. Net win for us.
I hope so. It also made me wonder about Poison Ivy. That plant is damned lucky that it is hardy, because I can't think of a worse thing to happen (evolutionarily speaking) than to develop a defense which is exceptionally annoying to a sentient creature with access to landscaping equipment.
I'm sure it worked great as a defense for creatures whose only real option was to 'Avoid that greasy trefoil', but once you add a machete and herbicides into the mix it's amazing how fast a true advantage is turned into a significant disadvantage. I hate that plant so much that I'll cut it off at the roots if I'm just walking through the forest and happen to see it.
Odd considering that other plants (and domesticated animals ancestors) won the genetic lottery simply by having a useful feature which humanity exploited.
Good for you. I don't.
I just wish some of the Apple fans on this website understood that concept.
What would we fight about then?