That's because "Webster's Dictionary" would be a trademark.
Every "Webster's" dictionary is copyrighted (mine is copyrighted 1958 by Books, Inc.). Just try copying one. You'll find out. No, you can't copyright a fact, but you can damned well copyright what you wrote about that fact.
Actually, parents only get to keep tabs on their kids who are old enough to drive alone with the consent of their kids (although the value of "consent" may be arbitrily small, depending on the kid).
What this has to do with Your Rights Online, I don't know, but they seem to be using that designation as a rights catchall these days.
What moral, technical or otherwise authority do IBM and Red Hat have to 'certify' Linux apps?
They have the authority of supporting what they themselves supply. That's what "certified" means in this context.
"We've run app foo under RHX.X on an IBM ASXXX and we say if works. Therefore, if it don't, we are responsible for making it work."
It's a pretty simple concept really.
If you don't run RH on IBM iron, or don't write apps that you somehow feel must get into the IBM/RH enterprise "solution set," the whole thing is meaningless to you and you can quite safely ignore it.
(-1 Troll, here I come.)
Yeah, you're at 0 Troll as I post this. I don't know why. You asked a perfectly good question, based on a perfectly good lack of understanding, which deserves a perfectly good answer, which I'm sure other people could use as well.
Some mods not only don't know how to take a joke, they don't know how to take a serious either.
The solution for the "enterprise" is simple. Run fairly standarized hardware and software. Pick a platform and pick a "house" distro, and core business applications for which the bugs have been worked out of the combination so you know how to support what you're using.
Oh, wait. ..
(Oh, and while Linux certainly has dependency hell it doesn't have dll hell, which refers to the lack of version awareness, not simply dependency. In some respects dependency hell is the cure for dll hell. Ain't engineering tradeoffs a bitch? Get used to 'em though. They aren't going to go away.)
I'm willing to bet that the majority of these dumbasses are little kids who wouldn't dare say the word in public, or to a black person's face for that matter.
I take it you haven't met Rex Cramer. Danger seeker!
Damn, man, what are you gonna replace plastic with?
With. ..are you ready for it?
Plastic!
Petroleum isn't the only source of plant based hydrocarbons. There just happen to be a lot of partially processed plant based hydrocarbons lying around for the taking at the moment.
Not that we could grow enough plants to meet our current demands, let alone our extrapolated future demands, but that's a somewhat different issue.
I'm not sure how to answer a question answered with a question.
Fucking conservative Stern-basher.
I did not bash Howard Stern. To the extent that I am a conservative I support him. Supporting the First Ammendment is conservative. It is also liberal. You might want to give some consideration to what the word "conservative" means. I'm not sure it means what you think it means.
Go listen to your Limbaugh
This, however, I would have to consider a pretty dire personal attack.
. ..so I'm not sure it would be understood in North Africa.
Well, you certainly would be better off with French as your second language in those parts of it where English won't do. That's how my father gets by in that neck of the, ummmmmmm, woods.
Someone else said it first and you didn't attribute.
And I was only half-serious (or half-kidding?).
And I was a bit less serious than that.
I'd never assume people would know what I was quoting if I didn't put it in quotes . ..
To quote or not to quote, that is the question, whether tis nobler in the mind the suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous poster, or to take arms against a sea a mods and by metamoderating, end them.
I'm willing to risk a few people not knowing the source of what I just parodied, and even willing to pass off those that don't as a bit undercultured. Some things are just plain well enough known that the assumption isn't unreasonable.
In fact, it is in and of itself a form of humor. A lot to the lines currently attributed to Mark Twain were "plagiaried." That is to say, he said things that other people had said to make his speaches funnier, and they were funny because of the shared reference to the preexisting lines between him and the audience.
Just as noone here attributes hot grits or in Korea only old people. It would actually be irksome to do so all the time.
There simply comes a point where you have to assume a joint cultural reference, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, or we'd all walk around spending more time explaining what we were saying than saying it.
On a knitting forum populated with 70 year old grannies I'd likely have attributed Men in Black myself. Here I have posted the same quote without attribution myself.
. ..so the lack of attribution irked me a bit...
Really? I hadn't noticed.:) I'm afraid I'm likely to irk you a bit now and again.
Note that in a latter post I attributed a quote to Edwin Newman, in part because the the reference is rather obscure (despite being a reference to a very popular television episode) and in part because the attribution was actually a significant part of the joke.
On a Newhart fan club forum I seriously doubt I would have. In jokes are fun, assuming you're "in," of course.
The plaintiff will have to argue that they were on the computers first, and were installed under an EULA.
In other words, it's all about the EULA (and in this case the only way that can be relevant is if the EULA says the user can't uninstall it, ever). There's no principle of "primacy" in software installation. Plaintiff has no authority over the user's computer.
As I said in another post, there's no way EULAs will lose here.
I never suggested anything of the kind. It isn't in the interest of either the plaintiff, or the defendant, both of whom rely on EULAs, so any EULA breaking arguments will never come up.
Not that this dog will ever hunt up a court ruling. It's a harrassment suit. It'll be settled.
Slashdot Mirror
That's because "Webster's Dictionary" would be a trademark.
Every "Webster's" dictionary is copyrighted (mine is copyrighted 1958 by Books, Inc.). Just try copying one. You'll find out. No, you can't copyright a fact, but you can damned well copyright what you wrote about that fact.
KFG
What the LA Times was trying to do would be like Linux developers to trying to find their niche among old people.
I believe this niche is often called "Linux Developers."
KFG
Actually, parents only get to keep tabs on their kids who are old enough to drive alone with the consent of their kids (although the value of "consent" may be arbitrily small, depending on the kid).
What this has to do with Your Rights Online, I don't know, but they seem to be using that designation as a rights catchall these days.
KFG
What moral, technical or otherwise authority do IBM and Red Hat have to 'certify' Linux apps?
They have the authority of supporting what they themselves supply. That's what "certified" means in this context.
"We've run app foo under RHX.X on an IBM ASXXX and we say if works. Therefore, if it don't, we are responsible for making it work."
It's a pretty simple concept really.
If you don't run RH on IBM iron, or don't write apps that you somehow feel must get into the IBM/RH enterprise "solution set," the whole thing is meaningless to you and you can quite safely ignore it.
(-1 Troll, here I come.)
Yeah, you're at 0 Troll as I post this. I don't know why. You asked a perfectly good question, based on a perfectly good lack of understanding, which deserves a perfectly good answer, which I'm sure other people could use as well.
Some mods not only don't know how to take a joke, they don't know how to take a serious either.
Well, as granny used to say; "Fuck 'em!"
KFG
The solution for the "enterprise" is simple. Run fairly standarized hardware and software. Pick a platform and pick a "house" distro, and core business applications for which the bugs have been worked out of the combination so you know how to support what you're using.
.
Oh, wait. .
(Oh, and while Linux certainly has dependency hell it doesn't have dll hell, which refers to the lack of version awareness, not simply dependency. In some respects dependency hell is the cure for dll hell. Ain't engineering tradeoffs a bitch? Get used to 'em though. They aren't going to go away.)
KFG
. . .free pursuit of new application and programming paradigms may be squelched.
My own observation is that the major commercial vendors are the primary source of "new application and programming pardigms."
And they are welcome to whatever mayfly of the week they dream up as far as I'm concerned, they deserve each other.
For most part squelching "new paradigms" would let people get back to work.
KFG
. . .no one has made a comment that I could reply wittily too. WTF?
I'm afraid it's you.
KFG
There aren't enough ads on that page, I can still see some content.
.
It's still just a Release Candidate. Submit a bug report, and as always. .
Show me the ads!
KFG
I'm willing to bet that the majority of these dumbasses are little kids who wouldn't dare say the word in public, or to a black person's face for that matter.
I take it you haven't met Rex Cramer. Danger seeker!
KFG
Damn, man, what are you gonna replace plastic with?
.are you ready for it?
With. .
Plastic!
Petroleum isn't the only source of plant based hydrocarbons. There just happen to be a lot of partially processed plant based hydrocarbons lying around for the taking at the moment.
Not that we could grow enough plants to meet our current demands, let alone our extrapolated future demands, but that's a somewhat different issue.
KFG
It's going to star Adam Sandler and Chris Rock.
You might as well start hitting the codine now, you're going to want to be as numb as possible when it gets released.
KFG
While we are at it might as well remake casablanca.
Howard Hawks already did that himself. It's called "To Have and Have Not."
Bacall sizzles. Much better than that weepy wuss in Casablanca.
Please tell 'em to keep their hands off "The Longest Yard" though. Please.
KFG
I particularly like the way the first exchange in the above came out, myself. :)
I think it's time to find a new partner though. Improv goes all to hell if both participants don't hold up their end.
KFG
...or committed the heinous crime of weighing less than a duck!
Hey, now that one's a fair cop.
KFG
It told me, "Dude, more chocolate and Jack Daniels is the answer to everything."
I'm really not sure my body can be considered a reliable source of information.
KFG
Yeah, I know. But sometimes munching on them, just a bit, while you're feeding them is hard to resist.
Ain't dysfunctional internet relationships fun?
KFG
conservative means greedy, republican, white, christian, fat, american good old boy club.
.
.pray for Stern's dirty soul.
Thank you for confirming the correctness of my suspicion.
go read your bible. .
"Pride in wealth and position is overlooking one's collapse."
From my Tao Te Ching.
. .
Since there is no soul, I'm not sure how one could get dirt on it.
KFG
Why would that be humiliating?
I'm not sure how to answer a question answered with a question.
Fucking conservative Stern-basher.
I did not bash Howard Stern. To the extent that I am a conservative I support him. Supporting the First Ammendment is conservative. It is also liberal. You might want to give some consideration to what the word "conservative" means. I'm not sure it means what you think it means.
Go listen to your Limbaugh
This, however, I would have to consider a pretty dire personal attack.
KFG
Could there possibly be a more humiliating end to the space station then being abondend for lack of food?
Being turned into Howard Stern's new studio?
KFG
Hey, why should rugby players have all the fun?
KFG
. . .not in West . . .
.so I'm not sure it would be understood in North Africa.
I'm dyslexic.
. .
Well, you certainly would be better off with French as your second language in those parts of it where English won't do. That's how my father gets by in that neck of the, ummmmmmm, woods.
KFG
How is "Plagiarist!" plagiarism, pray tell?
.
.so the lack of attribution irked me a bit...
:) I'm afraid I'm likely to irk you a bit now and again.
Someone else said it first and you didn't attribute.
And I was only half-serious (or half-kidding?).
And I was a bit less serious than that.
I'd never assume people would know what I was quoting if I didn't put it in quotes . .
To quote or not to quote, that is the question, whether tis nobler in the mind the suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous poster, or to take arms against a sea a mods and by metamoderating, end them.
I'm willing to risk a few people not knowing the source of what I just parodied, and even willing to pass off those that don't as a bit undercultured. Some things are just plain well enough known that the assumption isn't unreasonable.
In fact, it is in and of itself a form of humor. A lot to the lines currently attributed to Mark Twain were "plagiaried." That is to say, he said things that other people had said to make his speaches funnier, and they were funny because of the shared reference to the preexisting lines between him and the audience.
Just as noone here attributes hot grits or in Korea only old people. It would actually be irksome to do so all the time.
There simply comes a point where you have to assume a joint cultural reference, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, or we'd all walk around spending more time explaining what we were saying than saying it.
On a knitting forum populated with 70 year old grannies I'd likely have attributed Men in Black myself. Here I have posted the same quote without attribution myself.
. .
Really? I hadn't noticed.
Note that in a latter post I attributed a quote to Edwin Newman, in part because the the reference is rather obscure (despite being a reference to a very popular television episode) and in part because the attribution was actually a significant part of the joke.
On a Newhart fan club forum I seriously doubt I would have. In jokes are fun, assuming you're "in," of course.
KFG
Dude, I was quoting a grammar weenie joke from Newhart.
KFG
The word is "wiener." -- Edwin Newman
KFG
The plaintiff will have to argue that they were on the computers first, and were installed under an EULA.
In other words, it's all about the EULA (and in this case the only way that can be relevant is if the EULA says the user can't uninstall it, ever). There's no principle of "primacy" in software installation. Plaintiff has no authority over the user's computer.
As I said in another post, there's no way EULAs will lose here.
I never suggested anything of the kind. It isn't in the interest of either the plaintiff, or the defendant, both of whom rely on EULAs, so any EULA breaking arguments will never come up.
Not that this dog will ever hunt up a court ruling. It's a harrassment suit. It'll be settled.
KFG