The $cientologists vigorously enforce the copyrights on their course material and they know^Wabuse the legal system. If they had been able to patent their courses, they would have. Khan Academy may not be awarded the patent based on precedent.

and apparently we've already passed it...

It looks like you're describing human metabolism with the following model:
Cal(Food intake) = Cal(Storage) + Cal(Activity)

Is that what you're saying?

I'm pretty sure people excrete calories too. It is therefore not clear that simply reducing calorie intake with no change in activity will immediately result in fewer calories being stored in the body.

Yes, fat people nearly always eat too much but if you have a large meal after a period of fasting, for example, you're probably going to crap out most of the energy contained therein.

What the..?

I have no idea about craft beers but with chocolate, less sugar == better. The bitter aspect is just a side effect of that, which some like, some don't and that's fine.

It would be hard to do it with just one, but scissor blades almost always come in pairs, hence "pair of scissors".

As opposed to the Star Trek 2009 which had Nimoy alone, and in a bit part.

Oh, you're one of those guys. OK. Thanks for clarifying; that explains a lot. I'm not a feminist (except in the "women are equal, we should treat them like people" sense), but you'd have to be a major MRA to have any problems with Fury Road. Oh, there was a strong woman character and Max had a peer and an equal. Shock! Horror! [insert eye roll here] If you can't enjoy Furiosa being as fierce of a survivor as Max, then there's something broken in you.

Similarly, open and close a pair of scissors. Notice that the point where the blades meet moves a lot faster than the blades themselves.

"News for nerds." It's right up there in the tagline. Mad Max is near the top of the geek movie franchise pantheon, probably just below Star Wars and Indiana Jones. This isn't a new Fast & Furious, it's a new freaking Mad Max. You know, that thing that got a lot of us into postapocalyptic / dystopian sci-fi flicks. If this doesn't count as cultural news for nerds, I can't imagine a lot else that would.

Works for me.

It goes a lot deeper than that. I am running software on a device I own. That software requests a resource from a remote service. After receiving it, the same software manipulates that resource in ways I have specifically asked it to in order to meet my needs.

The plaintiff's case is that they have a legal right to tell me how to view a resource once it's on a machine I own. Copyright etc. isn't involved; I'm consuming a properly licensed copy of the resource that they sent to me. I'm not distributing it, either in original or modified form.

There are already a million other ways I might modify that content today. I can apply my own CSS so that font sizes and contrast are to my liking. My web browser may actually be a speech synthesizer or braille reader. I may be viewing it on a mobile device that simply can't render it in its original form. But according to the plaintiffs, none of that matters: either I view it as originally intended or not at all.

If they're going to assert insane things like that, I suggest they form a W3C working group to publicize a standard way of describing what uses are acceptable for that content. Then my web browser could parse it, see "ADS_MAY_BE_REMOVED: FALSE", and give me a popup saying "This page is published by sociopaths. Continue?".

No, I agree. If Feynmann can't follow their calculations, there's something largely amiss. Then again, that was a while ago and for all I know they might be making perfect sense now.

But I still contend that "it sounds like gibberish to laypeople" is a pretty low bar to set. It's almost impossible to describe something like QCD to non-phycisists without stopping twice a sentence - "well, not a literal color", "not 'up' like in 'gravity'", etc. - even at the high school textbook level.

In fairness, almost everything from high-energy physics sounds like gibberish to everyone but the people running the experiments.

I too enjoy getting fired over stupid shit. Do you have any other suggestions I might try?

Ahem.

While it's true that more than 50% of marriages end in divorce (in the US), that does not mean that 50% of married people get divorced.

The reason: Second and third marriages fail at a higher rate than first marriages.

If they are so wary of psychopaths, why do they keep voting for them?

A very good question. I suspect the answer lies somewhere between tribalism (my grandaddy always voted GOP) and the successful illusion of a two-party Kodos/Kang electoral system.