Slashdot Mirror

You mean Welcome to 1990. Everything old is new again.

I like the expression 'abuse-excuse' but it apparently already has a different meaning - the use of prior abuse as an excuse for bad behavior. 'Excuse-abuse' seems appropriate here.

http://legal-dictionary.thefre...

Actually, it just popped into my head from wherever the next word comes while you're typing. It "sounded" good, so I let my fingers type it out.

Interesting that it is a legal term-of-art!

I like the expression 'abuse-excuse' but it apparently already has a different meaning - the use of prior abuse as an excuse for bad behavior. 'Excuse-abuse' seems appropriate here.

http://legal-dictionary.thefre...

A direct cause means, if I take action A, then the result is B. There is no other factor that influences the process. If I drink a quart of concentrated sulfuric acid, nothing about my mental state, previous training or knowledge or physical ability will change the resulting course of events.

An indirect (or if you'd like some finer shades of grey, Proximate, Unforeseeable, and Remote Causes) cause is one that is a contributing factor. Some small number of people who ingest cannabis, when combined with OTHER FACTORS, do things that are stupid, or possibly dangerous or deadly to themselves or others. Tens of thousands of people ingest cannabis every day, without jumping out of windows or hurting themselves or others in any way. Actually, "tens of thousands" is probably a very low estimate. According to a 2013 National Survey on Drug Use and Health, there were 19.8 million past-month users.

If cannabis use was a direct cause of people jumping out windows, or harming themselves or others, why are there so few such incidents when compared to the rate of usage?

The puppeteer pulls on the string, from audience perspective the puppet raises it's hand. The idea the puppet raised it's hand is false, the puppet's appendage attached to the string rose as a result of the puppeteer pulling the string. So actions by puppet presidents are the result of, highly placed corporate sourced officials, lobbyists, entrenched corruption in major government agencies and of course those behind the scenes making the actual decisions based upon self serving psychopathic greed and ego. I mean seriously did you not pay any attention at all to the same people going moving from one administration to the next or the business government 'partnerships' going on at the highest level or security agencies actively intercepting and recording the communications of all politicians at all locations even during meetings investigating the actions of those agencies. The reason so many decisions by US government fail so often, those making the decisions behind the scenes operate in competition to each other and as a result contradictory decisions end up being made and chaos result as actions are taken that disrupt the activity of each other ie working at cross purposes http://www.thefreedictionary.c....

Nowhere in the summary or article does it use tthe word "creeping". It says "creepy" in the context of producing a sensation of uneasiness or fear.

http://www.thefreedictionary.c...

Look it up http://www.thefreedictionary.c..., English spelling as in how it is spelt in England the home of the English language. Not stupid American spelling because special spelling was required for them because it seems they are a bit thick https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/....

So yes it does apply to the magazine when it is sent electronically. No it does not apply to the magazine when it is printed and sent via a truck and then van and then motorbike. I mean exactly how thick can you be, I thought I could not be clearer. Look the people who are paying you, well, they should simply get someone better, you are quite simply not good enough and just make their arguments look worse. Keep pulling boners like this and you'll be out of work but PR=B$ is far worse than no PR=B$.

I think you are confusing "thick skinned" with "thick headed".

I think you are confusing "thick skinned" with "thick headed".

Hmmm.... not sure what happened to my attempt at putting html into my commment. Let's try that again (and hit preview before submit this time...)

For chrissake look the phrase up in a dictionary.

Okay, that time it worked.

Or it isn't, because that's not what I said.

No, it is, because it's what you implied. Things you imply are by definition unsaid.

Here: http://idioms.thefreedictionar...

First clause of the first definition:

"because of certain knowledge now in hand; "

The use of "because" in this definition clearly conveys the causal link.

Is the person who has trouble with language the one who utilizes accepted vocabulary, or the one who does not?

Everybody here is using accepted vocabulary, but not everybody is agreeing on what it means. I believe you are in the minority on this issue, both today and historically speaking.

The difference between libel and slander is that libel is written and slander is spoken. The legal burden is the same for both. In this case all the plaintiff alleges that none of the transaction actually occurred. The defendant(s) have to show that they did have the transaction with the plaintiff and show evidence that the rest of the factual representations in the reviews are also true and the judgement will go against the plaintiff.

It does make review site look kinda dangerous and in the end does stifle speech.

Libellous speech needs to be stifled. How else does a company fight against people who try to ruin their business through posting on review sites?

Why risk getting a civil suite filed against you just for a review you didn't get payed for

Tell the truth and if it goes to court win and counter sue for costs.

Are you sure?
You scratch my back and Ill scratch yours

I would expect a massive crowdfunding campaign would cover any legal costs if the "rights enforcement goons" tried to sue someone for using CC BY redistributable music. The first case would (if it hasn't already been done anyway) form a stare decisis.

I would assume other (i.e. non-CC but cleared by copyright holder) music would be more difficult since there is not as much legal evidence to go off of as CC licensed music but definitely the public would be behind them as long as there is enough evidence to prove it was in fact legitimate. IANAL btw.

None of the rifles you linked to are assault rifles

I guess it's a good thing I didn't claim they were (I was joking in my OP)

and the definition of what an assault rifle is is most definitely settled.

Among the military and gun enthusiasts, perhaps. Perhaps even by legal standards. Settled among the general population? Not so much. If you care to look at how some online dictionaries define "assault rifle", take a look hereand here and here.

The reality is this: if I were to walk down the street with my AR-15 slung over my shoulder, a good chunk of onlookers will think "that's an assault rifle" (even here in Texas!).

This vendor has absolutely no idea of what an assault rifle is

I seriously doubt that. BTW, it's not just Grab a Gun calling these weapons assault rifles. There are many vendors doing so.

or is attempting to capitalize on idiots who think they're buying a rifle capable of select fire.

No, they're capitalizing on people who think that a *semi auto* rifle IS an assault rifle if it looks scary enough - and look...even the dictionary says so!

Is that anything like a paean?

"I am every bit a PHB but you are still insane." - by KGIII (973947) on Friday May 29, 2015 @05:07PM (#49801895)

See subject: Psychiatric sciences pro? If not, you've just libeled me (and, you're not by your own admission, per your ALLEGED credentials, you're not) - smarten up!

* For a guy who has those types of degrees, allegedly?

Man, you really should watch what you say, & THINK before speaking - it's not intelligent otherwise!

However: It shows YOU may be a "wee bit" insane actually, & being a 'pot calling a kettle black' hypocrite - you're not considering the consequences of your actions... for some, doing THAT is the very defintion of insanity.

"(Note that I do not debate the use of the hosts file. In fact I have contributed to the MVPs Hosts File in the past. That does not make you sane, nor should it. Embrace your insanity and keep on doing what you are doing you shining star, you!) Really, shine on you crazy diamond." - by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29, 2015 @05:07PM (#49801895)

Sorry man - Wrong: I'm not crazy here.

Apparently, you are, per "The insanity defense reflects the generally accepted notion that persons who cannot appreciate the consequences of their actions should not be punished for criminal acts" from -> http://legal-dictionary.thefre...

PLUS, again: Your business saavy NEEDS WORK http://slashdot.org/comments.p... since losing money != good business for the reasons I noted there AND BUYBACKS are fueling fake growth lately...

* Glad to hear you're intelligent enough to use a custom hosts file though. It's your 1 saving grace in my eyes... + I 'fixed' your words quoted placing your REAL NAME into them, since you posted ac THIS time, for posterities' sake!

APK

P.S.=> Still - Not only are you an ADMITTED "PHB", but you're also not very smart for doing that (for a guy who has some smarts per your alleged credentials) - I've seen that before from 'book smart' folks though who don't have a lick of sense in "the streets" or life... apk

I nominated "dingleberry".

According to Dictionary.com, it can be a verb.
also
here

Just an FYI, as the English idiom in your title is somewhat archaic: but the correct wording is "ride rough shod" and refers to a horseshoe with cleats.

Doesn't change your point one iota, but hope this might make the phrase seem a little more understandable.

I've read the previous posters' comments, and I understand all about the freedom of speech, the misunderstood Oliver Wendell Holmes quote about "fire in a crowded theater", and that "speech by computer" shouldn't equal a crime (right, it shouldn't).

HOWEVER, in all these great discussions it seems everyone is accepting and begging the question that the original comment about there being a repetition of XX/YY is a THREAT.

Sorry guys and gals, that's an anonymous TIP, a WARNING, a PREDICTION, the kind of thing that kindly old lady on the 900 number tells you, something your mother says if you touch a hot stove, etc. Call it what you will, but it's not a threat.

A threat requires an INTENTION to INFLICT or CAUSE HARM. It may even suggest that the person making the threat will be the one doing it. Google threat or here's an easy definition: http://www.thefreedictionary.c...

Fundamentally this guy said something on the Internet. He has now been excoriated as "an idiot" "said stupid things" "ha ha he'll get ***ed in the holding cell" "serves him right for making a threat."

It's only a matter of time before the LEOs say "You can't say those things and live."

Yes. In the United States we can.

I'm disappointed /. readers decided to punish the victim and accept the TSA-airport-attitude that "if you say bomb then we'll arrest you right then and there" and then when a passenger does say "bomb" we call him a stupid idiot. Stupid is the idiot that accepts this as his way of life and defends this insane idea that somehow making speech unlawful is either Constitutionally ok, or even helps our security [theater] at all.

Cheers guys and gals,

E

Pride goes before a fall.

Provided that Lightning never strikes (the same place) twice, [...]

Thank Zeus for not providing that!

Provided that Lightning never strikes (the same place) twice, just keep statistics and you'll know at least when it won't strike again.

http://www.thefreedictionary.c...

Check the definition of stifle. If that law had the impact stated it would not have allowed for as much music to have been released since it's implementation.

Quite simply, a patent "promise" is not the same thing as a license. You see, even if they're bared by Laches, they can still drag you through the courts and you've got to prove they're barred by making the promise. If you had a license...you could make a single motion at the first hearing or in the pretrial motions to dismiss because of being licensed if they sought to sue you.

Having this crap in there means Mono's toast without a real license to any valid patents, combined with a covenant to license all tech as it becomes apparent, that ends up in this common core of stuff. Otherwise, you're INSANE for using it- because you can and most probably WILL be sued over it.

No - it is actually stronger (look up promissory estoppel). But leave that aside, because the patents have also already been granted.

The *promise* was issued because fanatics cried foul at the patent grant, arguing that Microsoft with it vast army of lawyers could just sue any OS project out of existence, patent grant or not. Hence, Microsoft issued the promise, all but ensuring that such a case would be outright dismissed since you've acted in good faith on a promise. The promise in that case is actually one of the strongest contract forms imaginable, as it is one-sided: you do not have to sign anything to be covered.

Probably the second one of these

Instill
transitive verb

1. to cause to enter drop by drop (ex. instill medication into the infected eye)
2. to impart gradually (ex. instilling a love of learning in children)

(Source)

It predicates a patent safety provision on being a .NET project.

That is your interpretation. Your whole argument is based on that assumption. You have no evidence whatsoever that your interpretation is correct. Nothing backs up your assumption.

while they say it "is aimed specifically", they don't say it's aimed exclusively at that one problem.

One of the synonyms for specifically is "exclusively".

You're completely ignoring the section itself

Where in section 10 does it say and words like code, implementations, package, etc? It specifically states the license and not what the license covers.

But, hypothetically, let's say we agree that your "exclusivity" interpretation of of the section 10 annotation is correct and that you are correct that the intention trumps the wording.

You are again assuming that your interpretation of the wording is correct.

I think we'll agree that the OSI never intended to let developers call their software "open source" and reserve the right to sue people if they don't like technical choices of how they use the code.

Actually no we don't as I have no idea what is in the minds of the OSI and neither do you. In fact there are many "technical choices" that could get somone sued under open source. For example in GPL v2.0 you are required to show a copyright notice when accessing the package by command line. Make a "technical choice" not to display it and you could get sued. Open source licenses set out how people can get sued.

If we agree on that, then your insistence on intention leads again to me being right about Microsoft's terms being in conflict with the OSD.

If it is so out of compliance with OSD then why did OSI certify them and why are they still certified? What make you more of an expert on OSD than the people who run the organization?

If we agree on that, then your insistence on intention leads again to me being right about Microsoft's terms being in conflict with the OSD.

So you can not back up your arguments so go fall back on the "I may be wrong in the details but I am still right". Sorry we are talking about the details and you are still wrong.

"For example, a Statute of Limitations is an Affirmative Defense."

Bullshit. A statute of limitations is just that ... it is a LIMIT, not an affirmative defense. An affirmative defense is a JUSTIFICATION OR EXCUSE.

Bzzt! WRONG!

From the Indiana Rules of Trial Procedure, Rule 8(C):

"(C) Affirmative defenses. A responsive pleading shall set forth affirmatively and carry the burden of proving: accord and satisfaction, arbitration and award, discharge in bankruptcy, duress, estoppel, failure of consideration, fraud, illegality, injury by fellow servant, laches, license, payment, release, res judicata, statute of frauds, statute of limitations, waiver, lack of jurisdiction over the subject-matter, lack of jurisdiction over the person, improper venue, insufficiency of process or service of process, the same action pending in another state court of this state, and any other matter constituting an avoidance, matter of abatement, or affirmative defense. A party required to affirmatively plead any matters, including matters formerly required to be pleaded affirmatively by reply, shall have the burden of proving such matters. The burden of proof imposed by this or any other provision of these rules is subject to the rules of evidence or any statute fixing a different rule. If the pleading mistakenly designates a defense as a counterclaim or a counterclaim as a defense, the court shall treat the pleading as if there had been a proper designation." [Ind.Trial.Rule 8(C), emphasis added].

Here's another definition of "Affirmative Defense, specifically referencing "Statute of Limitations".

"Affirmative Defense" is a "Term of Art", idiot. Learn what those words mean (all of them).

Sorry, I thought that was the term http://medical-dictionary.thef...

Do you have some particular term that you're desperately attached to I should use if I meet you?

You use the term "and/or" but you clearly do not know what it means http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A.... I simply choose one of the specific options of the three available options you provide, so violence or sex or violence and sex (violent sex which is what you have when you mix violence and sex). It seems you also have a problem with the word 'rant' http://www.thefreedictionary.c.... A stated calm personal opinion is not a rant.

It is not 'just humanity' but the state of our current human society. Humanity has expressed itself in many ways over millennia, some worse and some better, we seem to be sliding into worse at this stage, compared to different era's ie just in the last century.

You're really such a liar. I went through the whole thread, and nowhere did I say that a hung jury would be a likely outcome.

Same as you lied when you claimed that he "could have gone to reporters first", when in fact that's what he did.

And no, giving everything to the whole world is not "spying for Russia and China".

BTW - the definition of Immanent

Impending; menacingly close at hand; threatening.

Imminent peril, for example, is danger that is certain, immediate, and impending, such as the type an individual might be in as a result of a serious illness or accident. The chance of the individual dying would be highly probable in such situation, as opposed to remote or contingent. For a gift causa mortis (Latin for "in anticipation of death") to be effective, the donor must be in imminent peril and must die as a result of it

The illegal acts by the government were certain, immediate, and close at hand - not some hypothetical in some future universe (which is what your arguments are).

After all, he was in a position to know the authenticity of the illegal acts that were being done, and his actions were targeted directly at stopping those acts, unlike the people who spattered blood all over the place to protest something different than blood-spattering.

When the government knowingly and repeatedly acts outside the constitution, they bring the government's legitimacy into doubt, not just inside the country, but around the world - and that's not just harmful, it's corrosive.

So, in summary: Don't use a movie as a legal reference, don't use court cases that were dismissed because the perps actions had no direct connection with the acts they were protesting against, don't lie over and over about what I have or have not said, don't continue to claim that the judge is the one who has to be convinced in a jury trial, and don't contradict what the law says when it says that justification is a defense. I could go on, but I think I've made my point. You are a liar. You have lied about what I said or didn't say, repeatedly.

The rules are eight pages. However, the details with respect to forbearance, the regulations from which we will not be taking action—that alone is 79 pages. Moreover, sprinkled throughout the document, there are uncodified rules — rules that won’t make it in the code of federal regulations that people will have to comply with in the private sector. On top of that, there are things that aren’t going to be codified, such as the Internet Conduct Standard, where the FCC will essentially say that it has carte blanche to decide which service plans are legitimate and which are not, and the FCC sort of hints at what factors it might consider in making that determination.

Okay, let's break that down:

The rules are eight pages.

Pretty clear. Rules = code. 8 pages of rules will be codified.

However, the details with respect to forbearance, the regulations from which we will not be taking action—that alone is 79 pages.

An additional 79 pages of rules that could have been codified won't be. Can they be later? Sure, whether they were in this document or not, they can always be written and voted on later.

Moreover, sprinkled throughout the document, there are uncodified rules — rules that won’t make it in the code of federal regulations that people will have to comply with in the private sector.

Oh, look, more rules they considered, but that didn't make it into the 8 pages that will be codified.

On top of that, there are things that aren’t going to be codified, such as the Internet Conduct Standard, where the FCC will essentially say that it has carte blanche to decide which service plans are legitimate and which are not, and the FCC sort of hints at what factors it might consider in making that determination.

Even more things they talked about that didn't make it into the 8 pages that will be codified.

For reference, to codify means To turn into law.

In short, it's 300+ pages of shit they discussed before arriving at the 8 page subsection of the existing Title II that will apply to internet services. We don't get to see the 8 pages of stuff that does apply, or the 300+ pages of discussion that does not, just yet; however, a reasonable person can probably guess which of the 33 pages of Title II might have made it into the applicable 8 pages.

That said, I wouldn't expect you to have that ability.

Maybe he was going for imp -> impious than for im-pious.

Along with your work, you provide a promise not to sue, giving up all your rights to the work in question. It's clearly illegal to do that with the intent of changing your mind later.

Well, since the armchair /. lawyers will soon descend upon your post spouting off about how you can't enforce anything without a contract, let's just go ahead and get this posted: Promissory Estoppel ;-)

However, as your link notes, the measure of recovery wouldn't be the same as if the contract existed, since there would've been no negotiation and awarding full use of the work would be unjust enrichment. Instead, a court would probably say that there are no royalties due for past infringement, but that you don't get an unlimited right going forward to keep using the work.

Along with your work, you provide a promise not to sue, giving up all your rights to the work in question. It's clearly illegal to do that with the intent of changing your mind later.

Well, since the armchair /. lawyers will soon descend upon your post spouting off about how you can't enforce anything without a contract, let's just go ahead and get this posted: Promissory Estoppel ;-)

If you need to be obsessed with something to remember something this notable[citation needed] then you've got memorisation issues. Just because hamburger was a dick responding to you, doesn't mean that the SSC wasn't big enough that it's reasonable to expect people to remember it.

There are many uses for SSC, and more than one of them are related to technology. How is someone supposed to determine which SSC is being talked about?

Not everyone remembers everything they are exposed to, let alone things they are not exposed to. Hell, I have lived just north of Dallas for the last 20 years, and I am fairly certain this is the first I have heard about a cancelled collider project being south of the city.

The definition is not complete. Here is the formal definition. Not sure why Princeton.edu doesn't have it right.

Coward is not just fear, it's shameful. It's like saying "bad" and "worst" are the same.

http://www.merriam-webster.com...
http://www.thefreedictionary.c...

It's a fuzzy clock in this natter, as TFA makes clear.

Probable cause does exist in civil cases.

The probable cause standard is more important in Criminal Law than it is in Civil Law because it is used in criminal law as a basis for searching and arresting persons and depriving them of their liberty. Civil cases can deprive a person of property, but they cannot deprive a person of liberty. In civil court a plaintiff must possess probable cause to levy a claim against a defendant.

"hates on Obama" isn't the same as someone who "hates Obama"

Neah, the slang "hate on" (according to your own link) still has the same meaning: "To ridicule, insult, or act hatefully [emphasis mine] toward," — as the regular "hate". That otherwise well-written and spoken people would denigrate their speech to slang is just what I was referring to. I'm glad, it passed...

"He hit the girl" and "He hit on the girl"

Well, here the word "hit" has a completely different and unrelated meaning. A "hit" of something (like cocaine) is yet another unrelated meaning. That's not like "hate (on)" at all...

. But how did they decide to call it a pallet?

I'm not sure about how that was decided, but I will note that an older definition of the word was "A temporary bed made from [straw] bedding arranged on the floor, especially for a child". Perhaps they envisioned the wooden frames as temporary beds for products to rest on?

the "haters" were often accused of "hating on Obama". That use of "on" was hardly proper English, and I for one was wondering, if Illiberals are genuinely Illiterate

Language is changing. "Hate" used to be a noun, and usually a verb. Like "his hate was aimed at the wrong person" or "he hated the wrong person"; in each case "hate" being the opposite of "love".

"To hate" has developed a new meaning. Someone who "hates on Obama" isn't the same as someone who "hates Obama". Instead, it means making wild accusations against Obama, which usually have no rational explanation but are just issued to hurt or annoy the person himself or his supporters.

A similar case, compare the totally different meanings of "He hit the girl" and "He hit on the girl". Or just check here: http://www.thefreedictionary.c...

The judge in this case made the right call - there's already been effort, time and money expended to get the case this far. Dismissing it and saying "bring another suit when you have new plaintiffs" would waste resources, not the least of which being the court's.

Actually, that's done ALL the time; it's called a "Dismissal Without Prejudice". Usually, the "Journey's Account"-type statute in the Jurisdiction saves the suit from the effects of the running of the statute of limitations (assuming the original suit was filed "in time"). Journey's Account is an old legal doctrine (that still exists in some form in many U.S. Jurisdictions) that allows the filing of a New Case for a few years (usually 2 to 5) that "Relates Back" to the Original Case, and is treated "Nunc pro Tunc" (as if it was filed back then). It is usually used to get past a Statue of Limitations problem when a suit is filed in the wrong Court; but can be used when a suit fails for almost ANY reason.

Class Action Suits are kind of odd; but I would bet they follow Journey's Account doctrine.

What I can't figure out is why they can even file a Personal Damages suit EIGHT years after the original purchase.

And the path that Zimmerman "cornered" Martin down was a passage, as through a continuous row of houses, permitting access from the street to backyards, garages, etc. So I can't see how something that explicitly matches a definition you state you are familiar with is unfamiliar.

http://www.thefreedictionary.c...

I've seen descriptions of the scene that fit the first definition on that page.

When I take the sum of the physical evidence, the incident went down about how Zimmerman described from contact on. What doesn't match a person of his claimed mindset, is the actions he took before.

I assert he was "lost". He didn't know where he was. He knew how to get home, how to leave the neighborhood, but not where he was at that point in time well enough to give someone a description of where he was. That's "lost". I find it comical that you've attacked every definition of every word I've used. And I've been able to use the first Google response to show my use consistent with standard American English (or popular global English, where no distinction is made in the definition between UK English and American English). And you continue with "lost". Your main complaint is the connotations of the words I use. Not the facts I describe. Makes me think your take on the evidence is more emotional than factual based.

If you can easily make yourself un-lost, that doesn't mean you are not lost. If you don't know where you are at that point in time, you are lost. Many years ago, I was on a family trip. Everyone was sleeping, but my sister, who was 20 or so at the time and driving. She woke everyone up when she got lost. She got off a freeway looking for a gas station, and there wasn't a matching entrance back on. Without knowing where we were, not even the city we were in, I directed her back to the Interstate. Turns out she got us lost in the bad part of Memphis.

Now, if someone wakes you up from a dead sleep, and you are in a place you've never seen before, in a city you've never been to before, are you "lost"? Does it matter if you make yourself un-lost within 5 minutes? I would say I was lost, as was Zimmerman.

The other thing in Zimmerman's story (same as the cop on the story this is based on) is that if you are facing a dangerous situation, and backup is on the way, why are you getting out of a safe car to go into a known dangerous situation? You don't have a duty to retreat. But that doesn't mean you have a duty to advance.

Between can be used even when there are more than two if the entities are considered as distinct individuals. Among, when they are considered as a mass or collectivity.

In this case I believe it was used correctly.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/between

If you don't have access to a surgeon and antibiotics, you're no better off than calling a witch doctor.

If a ruptured appendix is left untreated, the condition is fatal.

I don't think they are legally bound to keep that promise

They are: Promissory estoppel. It is like a one-sided contract - i.e. one that you do not have to sign for it to be legally binding for Microsoft.

If you look up the definition of abnormal in a dictionary, such as this one or this one. You get definitions like: ": different from what is normal or average : unusual especially in a way that causes problems" or "Not typical, usual, or regular; not normal; deviant. odd in behaviour or appearance; strange". So even if the word has a sense as you indicate, other senses of the word are pejorative.

How is systemd a product? How is Red Hat going to make money with it?
Red Hat is a company, they don't write software just for the fun of it.

Since when does Red Hat ever make money by selling a product? They make money from the support contracts.

Definition "something produced by effort, or some mechanical or industrial process" In fact, show me anywhere on that page that it says anything about pricing or costs.

Your bias against Red Hat developers can't be more obvious.

Well, apparently it could be more obvious to me. We're going around in circles here. They're the guys who wrote the software, of course they're going to vote for it. But me not taking that at face value that "obviously that must mean it's a good thing" is me displaying bias against the developers? The fuck? I can't tell whether you're being naive, obtuse, or just not effectively translating my arguments and assuming that I'm therefore an idiot.

How is binary logs not a technical argument against systemd? journald makes everybody's lives more difficult for no benefit other than "look what we can implement."

I swear, the next time I hear somebody say "you just hate it because it's new" I'm going to have a hard time not stabbing them in the eye. Sometimes NEW THINGS just happen to SUCK.

We give you guys reasons and then you stick your fingers in your ears and say "LA LA LA I DON'T HEAR ANY REASONS."

Idiot is in the eye of the beholder.