A year of part-time study on top of years of study to make you proficient in your subject. Even worse, in some places, the classes are of no practical value, the costs can exceed $10,000, and a year of student teaching is required. I realize that there are many states that have streamlined paths to certification for specialists who seek to teach their area of expertise, but that is not the norm. In Arizona (no jokes, please), an expert in a science field requires 30 hours of classwork in education and a year of student teaching - essentially a Master's degree in time if not in degree. While having an advanced degree in math is not necessary to teach middle schoolers the pythagorean theorem, what about teaching high schoolers evolution, electrochemistry, or circuits? At what point would you rather have a physics major that can teach rather than a teacher who has taken some physics? How much compromise in content mastery (not knowledge) is acceptable?

The scarier part of the summary is this: "not every biology teacher was a science major". It is, unfortunately, true. Teachers can get certified to teach biology with a degree in education and a minor (or even less in some states) in biology. Contrariwise, a person with a B.S., M.S., or even Ph.D. in biology is considered unqualified to teach their subject without significant financial and time investment for certification. While I understand that not everyone who can do science or has an advanced degree can teach well, is it not better practice to at least have some path by which they can easily and practically attain a teaching position in a quick and inexpensive manner? When non-science majors with a minimum of science education are considered more qualified by the establishment to teach science than experts in the field, is it no wonder that we are lagging in science education?

I'm with you up to the point where "effort" and "protesting" became rioting.

While many historians may consider Lavoisier the father of modern chemistry, most chemists (I am one) consider Robert Boyle's book The Skeptical Chymist, which came over 100 years before Lavoisier, to be the turning point to modern chemistry.

Read what I said again, and this time not for what you want it to say, but for what it really says. I didn't say the courts were wrong to convict MS. My point, to put it bluntly, was that if antitrust regulations deal solely with monopolies, as the prior post stated, then MS would have been wrongly convicted, and they weren't.

As to that being one definition, please cite the one you think most important and/or relevant that disagrees with mine. That one is from Merriam-Webster's American Dictionary, for your reference.

You have a contradiction in terms - in a monopoly, the commodity is controlled by one entity. There are no competitors, there is no market share except 100%.

monopoly

Main Entry: monopoly
Pronunciation: \m-nä-p(-)l\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural monopolies
Etymology: Latin monopolium, from Greek monoplion, from mon- + plein to sell
Date: 1534

1 : exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply, or concerted action
2 : exclusive possession or control
3 : a commodity controlled by one party
4 : one that has a monopoly

Thus, in a monopoly, there are no competitors. Antitrust lawsuits specifically deal with companies that do not have a monopoly. For example, see the cases vs Microsoft, where although MS did not have a monopoly on browsers, they did leverage their market share to unfairly crowd out competition and were sued for it.

100% chance: It doesn't get published because it's not good science. No attempt at replication of results. --OR-- 100% chance: It doesn't get published because the author realizes that it's good enough for popular press (TIME) but won't stand up to the rigors of peer-review.

Disclosure: I am a teacher with science degrees (and no education degree, but some coursework and experience in science ed research). You are correct, and, what's more, the article lacks any sort of detailed methodology and statistical analysis. Something smells fishy here. In addition, it's bad science to think that because you did one experiment of randomized trials that you have some sort of real discovery. (Yes I did RTFA and know he had many test sites, but it's one experiment) The experiment is virtually useless and lacks any real, strong validity unless and until another experimenter can re-create the results.

If the photography requirement is discarded as a reason, as you suggest, then financially GoDaddy would have to realize that any number of registrations is greater than zero registrations, which is what GoDaddy would have if they pulled out. Why voluntarily take zero income as some sort of gesture against taking less income? Bit of a cutting-nose-to-spite-face dept thing to me.