The issue here is that the producers of unsavoury content are being supported by income provided by the advertisers.
They probably don't really care about that either. What they care about is not being associated in the public mind with such socially unacceptable content, and as a plus by pulling their advertising dollars they can gain free advertisement from the news stories about pulling their ads.
I would think even the Russians (who generally have decent engineering) would have rigged an EXPLOSIVES DUMP so it would not just
Concrete separators, buried shelters, operational management to keep things separated. Pretty low tech stuff.
Aside from being an earth shattering kaboom it's a giant WTF.
The job ain't done until Linux won't run
We are trying to do to movies what we did to software with open source. Reduce its value so much that the people working in the industry struggle to survive
Huh? That's not what open source did at all. It shifted the value from copying software to creating software. People are still paid to write open source software, it's just that now most of them are paid by companies who want the features added (or the bugs fixed) directly, rather than by some middlemen that want to charge per copy.
That would be a major change to contract law
Antitrust / monopoly regulations trump contracts in a number of cases already.
Doesn't even require Safari - there's a password assistant built into the OS, even though it's not exposed as an application.
For those wanting more than a vague hint: it's in the Keychain Access app. The New Password Item menu item brings up a dialog box that lets you generate a password matching various criteria.
That she demands proof is equivalent to others demanding proof that we do not live in a simulation.
No, it's not. It's the responsibility of the person who proposes a hypothesis to provide evidence for it, or a path to find such evidence (i.e. specific predictions of what we'd see if the hypothesis were true). It is, in fact, impossible to prove a negative, so asking people who say we're probably not in a simulation for evidence is literally asking for the impossible: it is always possible to say "well, the simulation must just be slightly better than any of our observations!" In science, we therefore accept the null hypothesis (in this case, not a simulation) until someone can provide some compelling reason (for e.g. anything even remotely resembling evidence) to show that the alternative hypothesis.
Currently there is zero scientific reason to believe we live in a simulation. None, nadda, nothing. Personally, I don't think there ever will be, and I don't think I've ever even heard a decent, serious proposal of what such evidence would look like, to the point where I'm reasonably sure the "universe is a simulation" cannot be considered a scientific theory at all, because it is neither provable nor falsifiable.
Basic indications for thrombolysis (clot busting) in presumed stroke.
- Persons of a certain age (typically over 18, pediatric strokes have not been studied well and typically are due to a bleed from a congenital malformation)
- There are blood pressure ranges over which it's felt that punching holes in the brain is too dangerous
- There are certain medications (other drugs that work on the blood clotting system) that, when mixed with the clot buster make it too dangerous
- You have to have a major stroke - the procedure doesn't work all that well and a bunch of complicated statistics and people yelling back and forth have made a guess with the benefit outweighs the risk.
- TIME IS IMPORTANT - this is one of the big deals. Stroke is being popularized as a 'brain attack' (which sounds too Zombieish to me). That's a bit of overkill but the longer the symptoms have gone on, the less likely that busting up the clot is going to work. THIS IS WHERE THE SPIDER VENOM may come in - by protecting the brain while you do something (or not). Would presumably work in ischemic (formed by a blood clot) or hemorrhagic (formed by a bleeding blood vessel) kind of stroke.
- You should get permission. Thrombolysis could make things better - or kill you. The improvement rate is only 25-40% (something less than thrombolysis for heart attacks). The big downside is that you convert an ischemic stroke into a thrombolytic stroke. Since blood in the brain can't leak out anywhere, you have to drill a hole in the brain which typically requires the presence of a neurosurgeon. Lots of places don't have neurosurgeons just wandering around. Yes, we've been trained in emergent craniotomy. I have this neat stainless steel drill that looks for all the world like an old carpenter drill but you don't want me to get it out of it's case. Very, very last ditch.
IF - and a big if - this pans out it could make stroke treatment much easier and more useful. It could also be used in any sort of insult to the neurologic system (trauma, etc.).. Cryosleep anyone?
But it's a big if...
The best way of kill yourself is carbon monoxide, for sure. Painless, you fall asleep and die.
I thought that was my sophomore organic chemistry class.
Elliptic paraboloids for sale.