The US doesn't have nuclear weapons there now, but did deploy them in South Korea in the 1950s. It even made a point of announcing it, which the North Koreans took rather badly. South Korea is reportedly nuclear-free and has been for decades, but at one point, yeah, there were nuclear weapons present.
The only vaguely viable weapons were sealed by inspectors and awaiting destruction, and were verified as still sealed and awaiting destruction after the war. What few free weapons showed up had been buried and largely forgotten and were decades past their shelf lives.
The two Koreas have an armistice and are legally still at war. The United States was never in a declared war with North Korea.
It's more that the US isn't willing to do anything about it because it guarantees thousands to hundreds of thousands of dead allies and unpredictable results for geopolitical balance in the region. By chiding them publicly, it sets up a history of warnings in case something does happen, but lets all those people keep living for now.
Also, South Korea doesn't want to fight over it, preferring to wait until the regime collapses on itself and then figuring out how to clean up that mess, which would be easier than cleaning up that mess plus the leftovers from a war.
It's not a direct read, but the idea is the same. You're thinking of a letter, and your attention goes to the letter on the screen even if your eyes don't move at all (they mention this for use in locked-in syndrome, where there's no voluntary movement at all). The iris responds to a lesser degree than it would if it were to center on the letter, but it still responds to the brightness, an involuntary movement based on a thought.
It's not a direct brain interface, but it makes for an indirect one through. A reading of what the subject is thinking, even at so rudimentary a level as a binary choice like this, without relying on a conscious physical action can be seen as a form of brain interface.
Hawking still uses a system activated by a muscle in his cheek, one of the few over which he still has some level of control, which is then detected by an IR sensor in his glasses. Earlier versions used a small joystick while he still had some control over a few fingers (or maybe it was just one), but the system has been adapted as he's lost more and more control.
This system might allow him to continue working even if he loses the last vestiges of control over his facial muscles.
If the response after the sexual activity is to get up, put clothes back on, head out, and pretend that nothing happened, that doesn't mean that rape didn't happen. The only point at issue is if consent was given (and it can be implied by activity). If consent was not given, it's rape.
While I like the idea of its behavioral detection of tracking cookies, and its stats panel is informative, my ultimate problem is that it allows the cookies to be set in the first place. 99.9% of the cookies shoved at my browser are entirely, provably unnecessary -- the page displays the same regardless. As such, my philosophy is that they should never be accepted in the first place, even temporarily.
The cookie request is also a waste of bandwidth. If you're going to display the same page either way, why clog the pipe with a cookie that you're manifestly not doing anything meaningful with?
Set your cookies to request always and prepare for > 30 of them: [
A mere thirty? Lucky you. That's easily manageable; just lean on the ESC key for a few seconds. I've visited sites that tried assaulting me with nearly a thousand for a single page.
Moreover, the allegation that enabling the feature destabilized the browser is pharmaceutically pure bullshit. I've been using the feature since its inception, and have Firefox windows open and running for days at a time without ill effect.
Contrariwise, I just went to check my cookie store, and found a bunch of new, unapproved, unwelcome, provably unnecessary cookies have appeared in just the week since I moved from v43 to v44. Deleting them after the fact is not a solution. Once set, tracking can take place immediately. The damage has already been done.
The proffered reasons for the change are easily shown to be false, so I do not hold out any hope that Mozilla management will have a change of heart on this matter and reinstate the long-standing feature.
Would anyone care to recommend a cookie management add-on?
My experience is that this isn't limited to radical conservatives. There are plenty of people on the left that have the same reaction. I think it's innate to humans in general to rebel to being told they're wrong.
All life evolves by the differential survival of replicating entities. -- Dawkins