It's not being treated as a monolith. The government was finally spurred to action on this issue mainly because of Islamist trying push religion in science class. The general rule is that you can't false claims about any flavor of creationism being accepted supported science. You have to teach science in a science class. Kinda like you are supposed to be teaching math in a math class.

No. Old earth creationists are being treated equally. You can't teach old earth creationism in a science class when the only accurate description of the current state of science is that professional scientists consider old-earth creationism unscientific and unsupported scientifically.

It seems you need to flip that around.
Scientific is not the same thing as atheism!
Science does not mention gods because there is zero scientific evidence for or against the existence of any gods. Just because science has nothing to say about gods does not make science atheistic. Just because welding class has nothing to say about gods doesn't make welding atheistic.

Yep. And therefore shouldn't be in a science class.

A theology class, comparing and contrasting the major world religions, would be an entirely appropriate class to teach the Islamic, Christian, Hindu, Buddhist and other stories of creation.

-

What a bizarre argument. You confirm every single point of the case proving AGW, and you counter by citing that atmospheric CO2 only goes up half as fast as we dump CO2 into the atmosphere. This is something that has been long known and factored in by scientists. As long as atmospheric CO2 is going up then you're concurring that the AGW case has been established, and you're merely pointing out that in a fictional world without natural CO2 sinks the CO2 increase would have been twice as fast, a fictional world that would have had faster and more severe warming.

Basically you're saying the effect is real and proven, but it's only half as big as I imagine it could have been, therefore it doesn't exist? Huh?

-

It has been known for years, probably decades, that gene frequencies follow this mathematical rule, and that it has been mathematically proven optimal for solving Multi-armed bandit type problems. Each generation genes are tested by natural selection, and increase or decrease in frequency according to multiplicative increase or decrease. This is a mathematically optimal strategy for exploring and optimizing payoff in a complex unknown environment. Mutation creates random stuff to try, and this mathematically selection algorithm optimally crafts it into useful new information.

-

Tesla's 3rd generation car is supposed to be a mass market vehicle that may disrupt the "automotive order" if Musk manages to build it. The giga battery factory he is looking for a home for is a critical component since it is critical to have enough affordable batteries for a mass market electric car.

Tesla today wont disrupt NADA, but Tesla in a few years very well may, they know it, so they are trying to nip it in the bud.

I wonder if this isn't a function of the high temperature you use welding. At lower temperatures iron alloys can be extruded and of course shaped by forging, neither process which would work with water.

Most people don't realize, but the technology to melt iron didn't exist in most of the world until the early modern era. Only China had furnaces hot enough to reach the melting point of iron. European ironworkers used a "bloomery" furnace in which they roasted ore. Bits of solid but red hot iron would drop to the bottom of the furnace and stick to each other, forming a dirty ball of iron called a "bloom". An ironworker would then reheat the bloom and forge it into an iron billet, a process which also drives out a lot of the impurities in the iron.

The thing is, those little bits of of red hot iron were a lot more like plastic than they were water. I can easily imagine some kind of 3D printer which melts the end a very tin piece of steel wire, and deposits a tiny droplet that immediately cools to a plastic state because it has very little thermal masss. If you think about it, surface tension is actually your friend here. The thing is, I don't see what advantage this would have over laser sintering.

As long as nobody stops me from teaching Lord of the Rings as history.

Seriously, it's like we we've been having a conversation about home-built plastic ultralight aircraft, and then somebody says, "Hey, there's this company out in Seattle that makes aircraft out of metal."

Doing it with molten metal is a new one on me, but people have been laser sintering metal powder for thirty years now, and I bet most of the dollar volume of 3D printers shipped today are of this type. They've been coming down in price too. I have a friend who's a research machinist who has one in his lab, and he tells me that the strength gap between cast metal parts and laser sintered parts has closed significantly over the years.

OK... I guess that clarifies everything.

Well, I guess I am. I believe the sun rises in the east, standing in the rain makes you wet, and white bread is better for you than arsenic. I'm just not sure which of my beliefs you consider "heretical".

Fun fact, by the way: the word "heresy" comes from the greek (hairesis), which means "a self-chosen opinion". So in effect the word "heresy" means to think for yourself.

Oh, cool, a conservative argument citing the 14th Amendment.

For what it's worth, I agree with you in principle, at least with part of your post. This is the government injecting a point of view into the public sphere, something it's better off not doing in my opinion.

Furthermore, while commercial speech is less protected than non-commercial speech, the government still ought to (and is supposed to IIRC) show there is a compelling public interest that would actually be served by restricting the speech in question.

So what is the public interest? The feelings of the 30% of Indians who reportedly find "Redskins" offensive? Well lets grant that for the moment. How does not allowing the "Redskins" trademark advance that? It doesn't stop them from calling themselves "Redskins", or using the logo, or even using copyright to protect a lot of their merchandise.

If this goes to the courts and is eventually overturned, it will be on the basis that it restricts commercial speech in a way that doesn't effectively serve any public purpose, even if we grant that not offending people is a public purpose.

Now all that said, I do find characterizing all American Indians as "history's losers" as offensive. And ignorant too. And as for the idea that gaining an upper hand by force and treachery entitles you to do whatever you want to the other side, I find that repugnant.

So what about free speech? They can still call themselves the "Redskins".

This is about trademarks, and the interests protected are somewhat different than those protected by the First Amendment.

The Redskins can still sell "Redskins" merchandise -- that's your first Amendment protections at work. What they can't do now is stop other people from using the word "Redskins" on merchandise of the type the Redskins organization sells, licenses or endorses. They may have copyright or trade dress claim if that merchandise borrows too much from their products. I don't know, this touches on areas of IP law which as an IT guy I've never had to worry about.

The Redskins logo is not affected by this ruling, IIRC. Somebody will have to show that depicting an Indian with feathers is offensive, which is going to be tough. So the Redskins organization retains a monopoly on products bearing their logo. Even if they lose on that they still have copyright on the logo. There may be a few peculiar situations where people can do something under copyright they couldn't do under trademark, because it doesn't involve any actual copying. But their logo T-shirt, beer glass, coaster, key-chain etc. business is perfectly safe.

So I don't see this development as something that is likely to hit the Redskins football team where it hurts -- in the pocketbook.

Well, when analog photography came in, some people thought it would be the death of painting, particularly of portraiture. Obviously that didn't happen. A photographic portrait is different, and it is certainly more convenient for all involved, but filtering an image through a painter's eyes, brain, training, imagination etc. still seems to have value for many people.

Now the transition to digital from analog photography is different of course; and as Mark Twain once noted, history doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme.

Presumably you *can* do anything with digital that people once did with analog photography, but in art its not a simple matter to separate technique from intent. The naive view is you form an intention and pick a technique that will accomplish that intention, but in fact intention and technique inform each other. Artists always struggle with their tools. And they look at the result of other artists struggling with their tools. And so artistic movements are born.

So when a teacher makes the kids learn analog photography before they switch to digital, what he's trying to do is ground them in a 150 years of photographic aesthetics. He could do this by by making the kids reproduce the results of analog photography using entirely different techniques. But the kids' understanding of what came before them wouldn't be the same as if they actually put their hands to the authentic, if obsolete methods.

That was my point. What I said is that this kind of situation is what net neutrality is *for*. I didn't say Google was violating net neutrality. Nitwit.

I don't see what's evil about it.

THIS is what net neutrality is *for*. People who own the services can include and exclude whatever content they want, and if the users don't like it they really can choose a different service.

What Google is doing may be misguided, but it's not evil because it doesn't stop people from getting whatever they want.

Very few kids. And most of those didn't have modems. Adults often did, and they could buy things on CompuServe or AOL dialup, at 1200 baud. Not many people did, and those who did so did it more for the novelty value.

But I did slip from 1986 to 1967 in my reminiscing. It was the comic book thing. My dad had restaurant next to a convenience store and I used to buy my comic books there.

These were telemarketing operators who didn't have physical access to the credit card. Anyway, back in those days the data wasn't encrypted yet. So I fear I have led you to squander an insightful comment.

It's easy for an old timer to forget that people under the age of 40 have never ordered anything over the phone. At the time I'm talking about, the web was years in the future, and it was illegal to conduct commerce over the Internet (which we called "the ARPANet"). Most businesses ran entirely on paper, and most people had never seen a computer in person. Usually in the movies or TV they'd use a 7 track tape drive as the prop "computer", although those were obsolete even then.

So believe it or not, back then it was common to call a vendor on a phone, verbally tell him what you want, and then read off your credit card number and expiration date. This was simply the way you bought things if you weren't shopping at a bricks-and-mortar store (which we called "a store"). Nobody was worried about "identity theft" because thieves still dealt mainly in cash and transportable valuables and crooks were only just then cottoning on to the value of information.

You could also buy stuff by writing a letter to a vendor listing what you wanted and enclosing a check or money order (which was a check you got at the post office in exchange for cash and and extra nickel). Six to eight weeks later your stuff would arrive. For some reason it was always "six to eight weeks". That's how we used to buy stuff like propeller beanies and x-ray specs from poorly printed ads in the back of comics. The x-ray specs were a bust; all they'd do is make girls think you were creepy, which was actually kind of the point. You could also send away for itching powder and books of allegedly comical retorts you were supposed to use if somebody said something that made you feel bad and you couldn't think of anything original. "May the fleas of a thousand camels infest your armpits." That material killed -- usually the kid who tried to use it.

It was a simpler time. Kids couldn't get access to porn (which we called "dirty pictures") because they kept it on a shelf higher than we could reach. You had to know to sneak into the firehouse when the men were out on an alarm. We didn't have gaming consoles so we had to make our own fun. We'd go out in the healthy fresh air and throw rocks at each other. That was our version of a "first person shooter". Sometimes to fill up the time we'd have fist fights with kids who were a different race or religion from us. Or from the other end of the street. Or were just there. Believe me it kept you on your toes when you were walking home at night! But it wasn't hateful, it was just something to do when you don't have "Grand Theft Auto" to keep you distracted. The next day we'd be having a pickup baseball game (no adult supervision for *us*) down at the sandlot with the very same kids we'd just fought. We'd laugh, exchange insults, and swipe the other guys equipment when he wasn't looking, just as if nothing happened.

And I swear, every word I've written here is true.