Oh, here you go. I believe that’s all in order.
Seer of the tapes! Knower of the episodes!
Oh, here you go. I believe that’s all in order.
Urge to kill falling… falling… RISING! …falling… gone.
My headcanon is that the ban on genetic engineering is mostly an Earth law, rather than a Federation law. Which makes sense if the reason for the law is Earth’s experience with augments, as Phlox points out that other species have used it without the same dire consequences. This jives with the fact that only humans living on Earth are ever depicted as being bound by the law. It’s not a perfect theory, but it does explain why Bashir’s father was imprisoned but the Darwin station researchers were not.
The TOS doesn’t say anything about crimes like murder, and of course you can’t waive that anyway.
What it does say is that any disputes arising out of the use of their website are subject to arbitration. If the plaintiff is correct and Disney is liable because they posted the menu on their website, then that would be a dispute arising out of the use of their website.
The plaintiff doesn’t say that Disney owns it, though. They are basing their argument on the fact that Disney posted the restaurant’s menu on their website. The website is also under the Disney+ TOS. So, if the plaintiff is correct and Disney is liable then the TOS probably applies.
That’s good
Lisa needs braces!
This timepiece is of your forefathers.
I’m not upgrading because I don’t trust Windows 11. Not that 10 has my confidence, of course, but 11 seems worse.
The value of the DNS is that we all use the same one. You can declare independence, but you’d lose out on that value.
We can afford it, Marge, we’ve been blessed!
WTF were they expecting to happen?
AAAAAA(h)… now I get it.
Plan 9 from the Human Race
Hello. Smithers. You’re. Quite. Good. At. Turning. Me. On.
Lisa makes a doll to compete with Malibu Stacy’s anti-feminist message.
If social media companies exist to collect massive troves of personal info from users–and they do–then there is a valid national security concern over social media controlled by an adversary. This is distinct from the individual privacy concerns towards domestically-controlled social media.