What are you even talking about? I just rewatched Enterprise. Thier tech is shit. They can only go warp 5, almost every ship they ever run into is faster than them and it gives them problems. They have no phase cannons, only inferior plasma cannons. Nor do they have photon torpedos. They have no shields, only hull plating that really doesn't stand up to anything. Their medicine is inferior.

The only thing I can think of, is they get ahold of a Suliban ship that can cloak, and they use it for a rescue once. They can't figure out how it works well enough to integrate it into their own systems. The same thing happens in TNG anyway, they use a craft they obtained, it can cloak, but they can't use it for their own ship.

"By pure chance," you say? If the damn thing was designed to orbit and observe, how is it pure chance that at some point we saw something interesting?

This is all especially ridiculous since the original Abrahamic religion literally mandates drinking wine. At least once a year, you are supposed to drink four cups of wine. Taken literally, using big cups, you end up seeing your whole family drunk. As a ten year old, you also end up puking your guts out and this teaches you to moderate your drinking.

Damn goys ruining it for everybody.

Most profitable cult ever.

FYI, I just filed for free on TurboTax in Chrome on Linux. This may have been true years ago, but no longer.

I'm astounded you can't find the whoosh there.

Who's on third?

I'm not sure how that's relevant to my point. I was talking about Bitcoin based businesses such as exchanges, mixers, etc.

If you have a company that sells computer parts, but accepts Bitcoin via a third party merchant service among other payment methods, I would think they aren't directly subject to these regulations and certainly aren't reliant upon Bitcoin to survive. Perhaps the third party would have to charge more for the transfer if they were based in NY.

Bitcoin is inherently the opposite of anonymous. Every single transaction is forever part of the blockchain, free for anybody and everybody to download, and even compulsory if you want to have a local wallet.

The only way to anonymize your coin is to use a service which mixes up your coins so that it's nearly impossible to trace where they went once they go into the system.

Aren't there already laws on consumer protection, money laundering, fraud, abuse, and cybersecurity? I'm honestly wondering why they need extra laws to outlaw actions that are already illegal.

If this is about taxes (can't tell from TFA), aren't these business already taxed on their profits like any other business? It seems to me that this is all a bit unnecessary, and likely to drive away people who seek to start Bitcoin based companies.

I believe he thinks Auteurs isn't a word. For what it's worth, I had to look it up.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/auteur

Further, Hobby Lobby still provides coverage for more than a dozen kinds of birth control. Just not the ones that can induce abortion of an already fertilized fetus.

This sounds great, but unfortunately from TFA:

"Demonstration of a mini organ model lighting a bulb might be feasible in five years. But developing the technology for transplantation, hooking that up to the blood stream, connecting and synchronizing it with a heart with failed AV node will take much longer." Long enough that we probably wonâ(TM)t be enjoying superhuman organs in our lifetimes. Bioprinted "self-powered humanâ parts that generate electricity are at least 100 years off, Ozbolat said.

If Brendan Eich could be forced out for a $1,000 donation, surely Ms. Rice can be for influencing privacy policy herself, something which is highly relevant to this business. In addition, she has defended her position since leaving office. I think the real question here is where does this end?

I'm not at all disputing the idea of what you're saying. In fact, I agree that incompetence let this guy through.

However, your example of googling this guy's name is a particularly bad one. Google's autocorrection algorithms are based on the popularity of terms and their similarities. Since the bombing, surely this name would have been googled millions of times.

Do you really suppose that Google would have made such an accurate correction before the Boston attacks that madetheir family name infamous?