This just seems to be written around the culture of tech startups, there are plenty of small family businesses that are not there to become huge megacorps but to run a shop or make things on a small scale.
This is the actual article that caused Intel to pull out of advertising at Gamasutra.
This Slashdot writeup is incredibly shit, because it's not linking to the actual article that caused Intel to pull out.
Ask yourself why Intel would continue advertising in a site whose chief editor wrote that.
I don't even think it had to do with gamergaters "pressure", other than that they brought attention to it.
But why male scientists?
This, pretty much. The Black Onyx was a 1984 game, but it's well known that 1981's Wizardry had a much bigger impact in Japan.
In case people don't know what you're referring to, The Star Trek OPs room Gen. Alexander had contractors make while he was in Army Intelligence
You want old jokes?
Imagine a Beowulf cluster of these....
Their executive's stocks don't get scrutinized for insider trading, as happened to a certain Qwest executive...
Look, I was in my teens when I saw it in the theater, and I was not a fan or defender of Heinlein's (still have not read any of his books).
I still thought the movie sucked.
I got that it was satire, in fact I thought it was trying too hard to be satire. There was no subtlety and none of it was clever or funny. Nor did it lampoon the military in ways that actually challenged militarism or war on an intellectual level, it just made fun of the surface aspects of it (hurrr grunts are dumb, look at this parody of propaganda, etc). It felt like the director was just trying to bash his views onto the viewer without any introspection or intellect. Basically my reaction.
You know your movie sucks when a teenage boy thinks it lacks subtlety and intellect.
What? No, this is objectively not true: The US still doesn't have the equivalent to the UK's Official Secrets Act, for example. The UK law can compel people who are not part of the military or contracted civillians to destroy data or be jailed for revealing state secrets, whereas US law can only punish those who were directly contractually obligatged to keep state secrets, like Manning and Snowden.
Notably, the Guardian itself has said would not be able to report on equivalent disclosures about the UK under their official secrets act, but they are protected by the First Amendment in the US.
As for the past, the US was definitely far freer than most of western Europe through WWII, not having a permanent secret intelligence service for example. But since the end of the Cold War, the human rights situation in Euroope has probably caught up with the US, and exceeded it in some ways.
I'll get the grits, you can pour it down your pants to quell your sadness.
Agreed, but I feel that the American public will not care until an actual "old media" site or physical newspaper/TV/radio station goes off the air.
Which is not inconcievable, nowadays.
Link to Original Source
Just remember, you can't pardon someone who hasn't been convicted. Maybe you can give immunity from prosecution, but I'm not sure the President can do that. Knowing Obama, he'll have him prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
Welcome to Oregon, it rains a lot.