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.

I took the ASVAB way back in the 90’s. IIRC it was mandatory then too.

From his war memoir Crusade in Europe:

The same day [April 12, 1945] I saw my first horror camp. It was near the town of Gotha. I have never felt able to describe my emotional reactions when I first came face to face with indisputable evidence of Nazi brutality and ruthless disregard of every shred of decency. Up to that time I had known about it only generally or through secondary sources. I am certain, however that I have never at any other time experienced an equal sense of shock.

I visited every nook and cranny of the camp because I felt it my duty to be in a position from then on to testify at first hand about these things in case there ever grew up at home the belief or assumption that ‘the stories of Nazi brutality were just propaganda.’

Some members of the visiting party were unable to through the ordeal. I not only did so but as soon as I returned to Patton’s headquarters that evening I sent communications to both Washington and London, urging the two governments to send instantly to Germany a random group of newspaper editors and representative groups from the national legislatures. I felt that the evidence should be immediately placed before the American and British publics in a fashion that would leave no room for cynical doubt.

Be, is, are, was, am, were, being, been… are all the same word.

When in Vegas sell light bulbs.

Ask Robespierre how that works out in the end.

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.

Annual commemorative pastry observance

That’s good

Lisa needs braces!

Super Mario Brothers 2

Bust this trust.

It probably won’t.

Stop, drop, and roll

Florence Foster Jenkins singing the Queen of the Night’s aria.

Ublock origin, Sponsor block, and NoScript

This timepiece is of your forefathers.

35

https://www.citizensforethics.org/reports-investigations/crew-investigations/election-certification-under-threat/