I lived in Alaska for a couple years. They are definitely real and definitely big AF.
At some point the electrical signal has to be clear at a hardware level. Companies can make it harder, but if they're streaming any info to a device in your possession someone will be able to extract that clean electrical signal and reproduce an acceptable feed.
What I mean by "on your computer" is not that it originates on your computer, but that some form of it exists there--namely this is going to be images, text, links, etc that the ad company hosts and a website will normally download temporarily along with the rest of the site's content. Once your computer has that site's information you can do anything you want with it. Importantly what exists on your computer is a local copy of what the ad servers host. If you decide to color ads blue on your computer that only affects your copy. The original ad, and everyone else's copies remain intact.
To put it another way:
- If you want to see something it has to be clear (unencrypted)
- If you want to see something on your computer it has to be on your computer
- You can control your own computer
Therefore, any media that is viewed on your computer is clear, on your computer, in a realm that you control.
This is also why ad blockers work. You can send me ads, or requests to fetch ads and my computer just ignores them.
Companies will never be able to stop this, cause at some point you can always just intercept the data feed at a hardware level and reconstruct the stream.
Realism wasn't necessarily the end goal of a lot of painting. When you look at old Christian art one thing to notice is that different people can have vastly different sizes. The virgin mother may be most prominent, some patron saint smaller, and the artist themselves or the commissioner may be included as smaller figures. This play of scale was a device to show what was important and being sure to capture and portray that hierarchy was a more important goal than realism.
The author of a detective novel cannot prevent the reader from skipping to the end of the novel to find out who the killer is, even if that would spoil the pleasure of reading and ruin the author’s efforts to maintain suspense.
That's fucking gold.
First openly gay female CEO, not first openly gay CEO. I don't who was the first, but I do know at least Tim Cook preceded her.
All great cultures of the past perished only because the originally creative race died out from blood poisoning
Hitler
He poisons the blood of others but preserves his own blood unadulterated
Hitler on Jews
Whenever Aryans have mingled their blood with that of an inferior race, the result has been the downfall of the people who were the standard-bearers of a higher culture
Believe it or not, still fucking Hitler
There is a former US president who is currently running again who can't keep spouting literal Nazi lies-and a third of Americans agree with him. That should terrify you. We know what happens when Nazis take power and the US is not immune.
The constitution was never meant to be a living document.
See the 27 amendments and the process laid out in Article V for actually changing the damn thing. I think it's weird you referenced the literal part about how to amend it and came to the conclusion that it wasn't supposed to be amended. Just cause politicians have given up on their duties to work for the general populous doesn't mean the document wasn't meant to change.
Edit: previous author rewrote and clarified their meaning.
It's just what they call any woman that isn't 100% subservient to a man, be it her husband or father.
Purely a way for them to point out she's a woman without saying "we can't have her, she's a woman!"
Almost like the emoluments clause had a purpose.
Yeah with the actual work that's happening it's almost as if the state is paying people to do a job.
I'm genuinely curious what Musk's thoughts on this are. Is he glad he won't be subject to as much regulation or is he butt hurt that his toy isn't important?
Corrections and Clarifications
An earlier version of this article misstated the amount of money spent by the state of California on each violent sex predator.
That $1.7M is the total divided by the individual, BTW. That really isn't an outrageous cost over the time frame though.