You're correct when referring to the currency ("one bitcoin"). However, when referring to the software ("Bitcoin Core"), the network, or the protocol, the name is a proper noun and as such should be capitalized. The capitalization in the summary is thus correct; in the title, the word "bitcoin" refers to the currency but should be capitalized anyway, simply because it's part of a title.

Do American citizens have a constitutional right to fly?

Does the federal government have a Constitutional power to stop me?

It's baby_jesus_real_butthole(first_half_of_needle, haystack, last_half_of_needle), duh. But don't blame php for that, that's the name of the function straight from libjesus.

The "knowledge" is just a mass of facts, disconnected from how they were obtained. Some grounding in basic scientific knowledge is indeed essential, but that isn't the real point of a science class. The actual science—the main thing a science class is intended to teach—is the "scientific processes" by which those facts are theorized and either verified or disproved, which is precisely what this bill says not to focus on. It takes classes which are meant to give students the tools they need to investigate and understand the universe and replaces them with rote memorization backed by an appeal to authority.

Who's stealing the identity?

The drive walks away one evening, then the next morning it shows up and oh hey it looks like Doctor Death is coming up for release, he's served 999.9 years of his 1000 year sentence, it says so right in this excel spreadsheet, and excel never lies.

Eh, $6 is cheaper than most movie tickets and non-bargain blurays these days and I can watch the movie whenever, however, and wherever I want so it's more than a rental. The selection is underwhelming but if they ever get something I wanted to see in HD I'd probably do it.

One presumes that while they may not be willing to commit outright perjury, they would have little problem with taking your words out of context. Subtle shifts in emphasis can make a huge difference sometimes, and there is nothing obligating them to write down the parts of your account which do not help their case. As unjust as it is, their notes from the meeting will be taken as fact, while your account would be considered mere hearsay.

There really should be a requirement to fully document (with audio & video) every single encounter between public officials and potential suspects or witnesses, or have it considered hearsay. Until then, don't give them any extra ammunition to use against you.

The press is reporting that the Napa quake wrecked about a billion dollars worth of wine. Beats having a quake in Diablo canyon spilling plutonium.

Congratulations; you've just given the religious right all the authority they need to regulate abortion out of existence.

it's very difficult for the algorithm to determine the difference

Again. They aren't false positives. You buy stuff like that. The system doesn't care who you buy it for, or why you buy it. If you bought it for others before, you're likely to do it again, and while you may have never wanted it in the first place, you clearly wanted to buy it, or you wouldn't have purchased it.

Except for the case where I bought something from a wishlist and had it shipped to the person who put it on the wishlist. Then

A) it should be trivial to determine that this is a gift
2) The appropriate response is to show me other things that person also wished for.

Personally, I think both of you are wrong.

The reason for self-driving cars is so they can drive you by the billboards that match your demographic profile and skip the ones that don't bid as much for display time.

For what this person is accused of (distributing information contrary to censorship laws), even fines and community service would be disproportionately severe. Social responses are fine, up to and including complete ostracism—people have the right to do that anyway without any special justification. He can be barred from the theater, or even all theaters, if they so choose; if he agreed to a deposit or performance bond in exchange for his ticket then that would obviously be forfeit. However, as he has infringed on no one else's legitimate property rights, his own remain inviolate.

The proportional response for a deliberate violation of anothers' rights is that you lose any claim to those specific rights. The murderer forfeits his own right to life; the thief cannot complain when others take "his" property. The proportionate response to copyright infringement is merely that the offender can no longer claim copyright. But unlike self-ownership, and to a lesser extent property rights, copyright is asymmetric, favoring some and harming others. For most, giving up any claim to it is a reasonable price for not being subject to others' claims.