Brilliant man, love his music.
He’s always been EXTREME anti-authoritarian, anti-war, anti-establishment. Consistent, at least, in his positions. I don’t always agree, but I respect.
And without full context or quotes, I will not rush to judgement — an extreme man who takes extreme positions, meant to challenge.
And no matter what they tell you, it’s possible to be against the actions of the Israeli state without being antisemitic.
Suck rocks you worthless git!
Oberon will always hold a special place for me. As someone not happy with state of public Eidolon hunts, he gave me the ability to solo (all three!). Shards were finally obtainable :)
Cheers to the GOAT!!!
deleted by creator
I did. And, again at your request. And, what’s your point?
There are plenty of communities to share memes here, not sure why a “tech news” one needs to support this kind of idiocy.
I do appreciate the effort to contain memes. But, quite frankly, I avoid memes like the plague because 9 out of 10 are not funny or insightful — most just regurgitate the same tired tropes and worn out jokes. I am disappointed to find them here.
No, just no. I have already blocked dozens of meme communities, don’t spread that garbage here too.
Please. Climate change has been a well-lnown phenomena for a very long time. Scientists in the 19th century were warning that rising CO2 from human-caused emissions could harm the climate.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_climate_change_science
I see no article here.
I agree with the general premise you present, but let’s be clear: there is a BIG difference between framing this example as “invading horde” and “migrants”. One of these, at least, aims to present an acceptably neutral term, while the other targets a more visceral and inflammatory response. Both sides are not the same.
Sidebar, Rule #1: Post only articles.
Please post your memes somewhere else
Except that states have no fucking business telling someone what they can do with their body. “State’s rights” my ass! This is a “personal right”that was stolen.
Resign? Nah, the show is just about to get interesting!
That look on his face is exactly what would happen at the start of Quantum Leap. Grab some popcorn and see what historic wrong Dr. Samuel Beckett rights in this episode!
Yes, emphatically YES!
There was a dramatic shift in tone from the Trump White House during the early COVID days once it was realized that the virus outbreak centered on urban areas.
And it was incredibly obvious to anybody paying attention.
Here’s 200 to consider!
We can agree to disagree. “The Software” was delivered, source included. And you as end consumer are free to redistribute and maintain as you wish.
However, I cannot see any contract law judgement that would force continuation of a subscription model on the vendor (in perpetuity!) if they do not wish to remain under contract.
That’s a fair point, and worthy of deliberation.
However, I would continue to argue that if Redhat does not restrict parties’ rights to the source code they’ve been given, then they’ve satisfied the GPL.
It is my understanding (at least initially) that the GPL was meant to solidify the end user’s rights to the software they have, so that they’re not left with an unfixable binary executable.
And again, there are no rights granted by the GPL for FUTURE versions.
I can’t believe how many people fundamentally misunderstand the spirit behind the GPL.
It helps to consider “the software” as a single snapshot in time, with the GPL’s intention that the consumer may make their own fixes, rebuild, and redistribute. Check.
Remember: “Free as in freedom, not free as in beer.” Selling open source software has always been explicitly allowed, as long as you make the source available to those who receive it. Check.
What the GPL does NOT provide is guaranteed access to maintenance and future versions of said software. Again, it applies to a snapshot, as delivered.
In a nutshell, the customer receives open source everything they FOR A PARTICULAR VERSION.
I see no problem — either in spirit or letter — in Redhat’s approach here.
Nope. This is a terrible hot take that misses the fundamental spirit behind the GPL.
It helps to consider “the software” as a single snapshot in time, with the GPL’s intention that the consumer may make their own fixes, rebuild, and redistribute. Check.
Remember: “Free as in freedom, not free as in beer.” Selling open source software has always been explicitly allowed, as long as you make the source available to those who receive it. Check.
What the GPL does NOT provide is guaranteed access to maintenance and future versions of said software. Again, it applies to a snapshot, as delivered.
In a nutshell, the customer receives open source everything they FOR A PARTICULAR VERSION.
I see no problem — either in spirit or letter — in Redhat’s approach here.
You see, we don’t want to actually do anything about the border, we just want to yell about it. — Rs