Since when could slashdot not show a greater than symbol?
Um... when did Slashdot support greater-than characters in comments? Try the HTML entity, > (>). You may also be interested in less-than (<) and ampersand (&). Others can be found here.
The Federal Reserve prints the fiat currency (not the Federal Government) and the Federal Government borrows it.
Actually, the U.S. Treasury does the printing, at the Reserve's request. The Federal Reserve buys currency from the Treasury (at printing cost, not face value). The end result is that the federal government gives away its own currency for "free" and then borrows it back at the full face value, unnecessarily obligating itself to the Reserve in the process.
Of course, if you merely refer to lowering reserve ratios or "lending" out of thin air, both of which have the effect of increasing the supply of currency, that part is almost entirely the doing of the Federal Reserve.
I don't think the GP is advocating an end to record-keeping in general. The problem is specifically with the need to maintain tax records tracking IRS-acceptable market valuations (in US$) every time you make a deposit, withdrawal, or transfer. Imagine, for a moment, that every time you moved US$ into or out of your (US$) bank account you had to come up with an IRS-acceptable valuation of that money in units of Euros, or grams of gold, or whatever, and not only report this to the IRS but also keep it on file for years—even though you never actually traded in anything but US$. The situation with alternate currencies like e-Gold is the same, but with US$ and gold reversed. You may never actually touch a US$ at any point in the exchange, but the IRS requires that you continuously track the estimated value of your currency in US$ anyway, adding significant overhead to every transaction.
Lisp, and functional languages in general, do tend to nest expressions more than imperative languages like C/C++. However, when it comes to nested function calls, the only real difference is whether the opening parenthesis is placed before or after the function name. To use your example, is
(The ("professional" (appeal (of (forced (parentheses (is (as (bad (as (the (appeal (of (nested quotes))))))))))))))
I believe the GP is incorrect; there are some things you can do with CPP which you cannot do with native D code, such as defining part of an expression or statement in one macro and completing it in another. However, such constructs are almost never advisable, and are rarely used outside of deliberated obfuscated code. The most common case I can think of is defining some sort of table (e.g. method tables in MFC) with separate macros describing the beginning and end of an opaque array, but that is not generally required in D.
Between compile-time evaluation, templates, type introspection & pattern matching, and 'static if', macros corresponding to arbitrary well-defined branch of the abstract syntax tree—which includes nearly all C macros—can generally be described in native D without resorting to a text preprocessor. Of course, if you do find yourself in need of a preprocessor, nothing prevents you from using CPP to transform D code before it's passed to the compiler.
While I agree that natural languages are imprecise, redefining your terms mid-argument is a different logical fallacy. Whatever single definition you choose for "software freedom", "for software freedom" and "not for software freedom" are complementary to each other, and thus do not form a false dichotomy. (Put another way, "Are you for software freedom?" is a question which can be answered with either "yes" or "no", once you've come to an agreement on the meaning of "software freedom".)
Strictly speaking, "666000." would be wrong. "666000" is merely ambiguous; without the trailing period, or another equivalent mark, it could have between three and six significant digits, inclusive. (See also Identifying significant digits)
It's not a false dichotomy if the two options actually do combine to cover all possible options. For example, "You're either for software freedom, or against it" would be a false dichotomy, because it omits the possibility of being neutral. However, a statement of the form "You're either A or not-A" is a true dichotomy, as the given options are complementary.
It's a common mistake, but a state of anarchy does not require the absence of laws—only the absence of rulers. An anarchic society can still value and enforce a prohibition against murder, for example. Most non-pacifist models of anarchic society take the Non-Aggression Principle as a given, in some form, although they often disagree about the details—such as whether 'aggression' extends to one's property, in addition to one's person.
You should check your own facts before attempting to correct others. Yes, the standard template suggested by the FSF is GPLv2+, however this is only an example. It plays no part in the legal interpretation of the GPLv2 license. There is no difference between "GPLv2" and "GPLv2 only". If you license a project as GPLv2 then you are not "by default" licensing it as GPLv3, v4, etc. To do that you have to actually use the "or any later version" language.
In fact, if GPLv2 meant "or any later version" by default, as asserted by jdigriz (and apparently you as well), then "GPLv2 only" would also include "or any later version", and the GPLv2+ language would be superfluous.
GPLv2 says that it can be used under that license or any later version.
This is incorrect. GPLv2 is only GPLv2, not "any later version". Some projects multi-license their code under GPLv2+ ("GPLv2 or any later version"), but this is not required, and many other projects use GPLv2 exclusively.
There is no way that any past event can be proved, using this standard.
Then it's a good thing that science isn't concerned with proving anything; nothing is ever so well established that it cannot be called into question. Theories can never be proved—only disproved. The idea is to come up with an explanation which fits existing observations while also being both testable and falsifiable—not "provable".
My objections to your "testable prediction of ID" are as follows: (a) "ordered states" is vague and undefined; (b) by saying that they "might" be found, as opposed to "should be" found, you imply that not finding such states would not disprove ID; and (d) ID is rather broader than you imply, and not all supporters of ID would agree that intelligent design must include states we would recognize as "ordered". If you were to argue instead that the universe was designed by a being whose intelligence and capabilities are comparable to, and comprehensible by, humans, then that would be a testable prediction for the simple reason that we know what humans are capable of. (It would also be obviously false; the universe does not resemble anything a human might have designed.) However, the actual argument is that the universe was designed by a superhuman intelligence, and there is no way to falsify that. No matter what is found, we can always posit that a superhuman intelligence may be working to a design which we simply cannot comprehend.
What I discovered was that each of the evidences as a support for evolution is dependent on assumptions that may or may not be true.
Care to back that up with specifics? Keep in mind that we are discussing your supposed evidence (testable predictions) in favor of ID; the article in question was only given as an example of equivalent predictions in favor of common descent.
In addition, you would need to rule out that the similarities of species is due to them being from the same design house.
You really should read the follow-up article which addresses this and other objections raised by Ashby Camp: Theobald Responds to Ashby Camp's "Critique". In short, however, your point fails to consider that the similarities in underlying structure are not simply a matter of "reuse", but actually follow the ancestry of the species. When the same superficial function is found in separate branches of the tree the mechanism which implements that function tends to differ. This is not the pattern one would expect from an intelligent designer attempting to conserve designs. It is, however, the pattern one would expect from parallel evolution in the context of universal common descent.
Actually, RNA by itself is enough for life. It can serve in place of DNA for information storage, and replace proteins for enzymes and structure. DNA and amino acids have their advantages, but neither is strictly necessary in the beginning; they can be added later.
The idea that early life was RNA-based, rather than DNA-based, is known as the RNA World Hypothesis.
Thus, ID makes a prediction here: that there are ordered states that might be discovered with respect to complex systems such as life.
And if no such states are discovered, does that prove that ID is wrong, or will it simply be taken as evidence that we aren't looking hard enough? Can you give an actual example of an observation which would invalidate ID, and prove that there is no intelligent designer?
For some great examples of testable predictions within evolution—specifically, the core concept that existing species are related by common descent from a single ancestor—see 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution. Or, for a shorter read, you can find a few specific predictions listed under Evolution as theory and fact on Wikipedia.
It seems to me that the drive to cure disease is infused with the idea that there is (or was in the past) a more desirable state than the one the victim is currently exhibiting.
Certainly I can agree that this drive supports the idea that some people believe there may exist a more desirable state—specifically, one without the disease. However, your argument hinges on the concept that this state did in fact exist in the past (in particular, as the original state), for which you present no evidence.
I agree that any "difficulties" with evolution should be exposed, with a sense of proportion and in their proper context. Progress and the scientific method itself both depend on a willingness to recognize that no theory is ever so well supported that it cannot be invalidated and replaced in response to new evidence.
Of course, it is also important to recognize that even theories with known deficiencies can be useful, provided one understands their limitations. Newton's laws of gravity, for example, are known to be flawed; however, they are still taught in introductory physics classes, and are regularly used to model gravity under non-relativistic conditions. Modern theories of evolution are not identical to the original model proposed by Darwin; "the" theory of evolution has already been invalidated and replaced many times, and will continue to be invalidated and replaced by ever-more-accurate versions in the future as new observations are integrated into the model.
On the other hand, no matter what "difficulties" evolution may have, ID is not a scientific alternative and has no place in a science class. It makes no testable predictions and thus tells us nothing useful about the universe. A "theory" which is inherently compatible with all possible observations, past and future, is pointless. Why would anyone bother teaching it, aside from appeasing the prevailing religious establishment?
I don't necessarily disagree; certainly there is plenty of non-controversial material to study, and the course shouldn't focus solely on the topic of evolution and origins. However, any realistic introduction to biology must include of a study of genetics and species classification, which includes both the ongoing mechanics of evolution as well as mutation, natural selection and speciation—and it's difficult to discuss any of that without at least some reference to the framework which ties it all together.
Moreover, the scientific process which leads to the theory of evolution (and not, for example, creationism/"intelligent design") is an essential part of any science curriculum, including biology; one could even go so far as to say that teaching the scientific method itself is more critical than any particular subject within the science classes. Assuming that they understood the implications, I suspect that religiously-inclined parents would have just as much of a problem with a curriculum which "merely" teaches the scientific method, even if origins were never specifically mentioned. After all, a mind inclined to prefer science over dogma will naturally question the concept of creationism, and most likely have no deep-seated objections to the evolutionary model of origins when it is eventually encountered.
A myth is "a traditional story accepted as history; serves to explain the world view of a people". Do you dispute that your preferred version of the creation story, or any other variant, fits that definition? The phrase "creation myth" has nothing to do with whether the story is true or false. Creation in general is not scientific precisely because it makes no testable predictions by which it could be disproven. One cannot categorically rule out the possibility that the universe was created five seconds ago, much less 6,000 years ago, with the mere appearance of billions of years of consistent prior history. The absence of any testable predictions also serves to make any such "theory" completely useless; unlike a scientific theory, it tells you nothing about what to expect in the future.
As had been pointed out time and again, "proved true" is an impossible goal. There is always room for new observations which do not fit the expected pattern; the most one can do is develop a model which (a) fits all previous observations, and (b) makes testable predictions regarding future observations. A model which lacks the former is disproven[1]; a model which lacks the latter, like creationism, tells us nothing useful about the universe. The theory of evolution provides both: it is consistent with known observations, and provides testable predictions on subjects ranging from species classification to molecular biology.
[1] Note that even a model which has been disproven is generally much more useful than a model which makes no testable predictions. For example, Newton's theory of gravity has been disproven by new observations in favor of the theory of relativity; however, it remains a useful approximation so long as one does not attempt to apply it to relativistic conditions. An alternative "theory" like "intelligent falling" which naturally fits any observations you happen to make but makes no testable predictions of its own would be useless.
You just need to phrase the question properly. Rather than quizzing students on their beliefs concerning human origins, constrain the question to a specific subject: "According to the scientific theory of evolution,...".
that Yahweh created the world in six days as per the Torah
If you include that particular creation myth you haven't really left out the Christian version, since they're based on the same text. The first five books of the Bible, including Genesis, are common with the Torah.
Still, it's not a bad idea, with or without the Christian version. Bonus points for bringing in someone to teach each myth with sufficient sincerity and charisma to leave the students with the impression that they're all equally valid (and thus all equally nonsense, since they can't all be true).
Sorry, but the original idea of copyright is a bad one: the use of coercion (fines, imprisonment, etc.) to control others' behavior when said behavior causes you no harm. (No, competition with your preferred distribution service is not harm; your ability to employ your own property remains unaffected.) Even granting that you have the best of intentions—and that, for better or worse, copyright privileges certainly do increase the amount of copyrightable works created, as with any subsidy—it remains wrong to use aggression for any purpose.
Borrowing the item in the first place creates the return requirement implicitly. The lender is not obliged to try to find it and bring it back, that's on the borrower.
That depends entirely on the contract. You obviously can't borrow something without the owner's permission, so there must be a contract in place granting you that permission; if, in that contract, the other party neglected to specify that you have to take action to return the property (or else forfeit your own alienable property in the form of penalties), that's their problem. In the absence of any specific contractual obligation to return the property it is up to the owner to recover it, and the borrower's only obligation is to let them do so.
Of course, normally a rental contract does specify penalties in the event the property is not actively returned, but there is no "implicit" obligation if that term is omitted.
Who's going to inform the RIAA?
What makes you think they would care? If they were interested in respecting property rights they wouldn't be in that business in the first place. Natural rights and copyrights privileges are fundamentally incompatible.
Not really, no. They have no obligation to take action to return the property, unless they agreed to that beforehand in a contract. However, they are obligated not to interfere with your action to take back your own property. Withholding the property from its rightful owner would be an act of theft.
In any event, communicating information is in no way similar to a loan of property. Once you've transmitted information to someone else they "own" it just as much as you do—it becomes a part of them. At that point you have no rightful control over how they use or further distribute it.
The standard example is that if you, just for laughs, shout, "FIRE" in a crowded theatre and several people are killed in the ensuing stampede to the doorways, you cannot smugly say, "freedom of speech, baby," and escape unscathed.
I should point out that I have always disagreed with this standard example. The fault for any death or injury lies with those who panicked and trampled others in their haste to escape. That is unacceptable behavior even in the event of a real fire, much less a false alarm. The same applies to so-called "hate speech" and "incitement to riot"—individuals are responsible for their own actions, whatever someone else may have said.
I also never said there could not be any consequences; only that there could be no legal consequences from mere speech, regardless of the content. Social ostracism and fines which you agreed to in advance as part of a voluntary contract (when buying a theatre ticket, for example) are perfectly acceptable responses, and do not violate one's freedom of speech. False speech (i.e. fraud) can also void a contract, but that is not a punishment for the speech; rather, it is a consequence of lacking the "meeting of the minds" required for any contract.
Your name may be public in the abstract, but the connection between said name and your comments on this website is certainly private (as in: not expressed; confined to particular persons or groups), and should be protected as such. I stand by my statement that if information is public there is no need to subpoena for it; the requesting party can find the information on their own. If a subpoena is required then all the normal protection for private information should apply.
P.S. If you want to be taken seriously in the future, drop the childish ad hominem attacks.
"Freedom of speech" means exactly that: there can be no legal consequences for anything you might happen to say. Anything less would be absurd. That (plainly unconstitutional, at least here in the US) exceptions are made for the categories you listed simply means that the government does not completely recognize our right to freedom of speech.
The really absurd part of this case is that the court is basing much of its reasoning on the idea that this information has already been made "public". Well, if it were really public, why do they need a court order to get at it? Either the order is about private information, or the order is unnecessary. Which is it?
Slashdot Mirror
Since when could slashdot not show a greater than symbol?
Um... when did Slashdot support greater-than characters in comments? Try the HTML entity, > (>). You may also be interested in less-than (<) and ampersand (&). Others can be found here.
The Federal Reserve prints the fiat currency (not the Federal Government) and the Federal Government borrows it.
Actually, the U.S. Treasury does the printing, at the Reserve's request. The Federal Reserve buys currency from the Treasury (at printing cost, not face value). The end result is that the federal government gives away its own currency for "free" and then borrows it back at the full face value, unnecessarily obligating itself to the Reserve in the process.
Of course, if you merely refer to lowering reserve ratios or "lending" out of thin air, both of which have the effect of increasing the supply of currency, that part is almost entirely the doing of the Federal Reserve.
I don't think the GP is advocating an end to record-keeping in general. The problem is specifically with the need to maintain tax records tracking IRS-acceptable market valuations (in US$) every time you make a deposit, withdrawal, or transfer. Imagine, for a moment, that every time you moved US$ into or out of your (US$) bank account you had to come up with an IRS-acceptable valuation of that money in units of Euros, or grams of gold, or whatever, and not only report this to the IRS but also keep it on file for years—even though you never actually traded in anything but US$. The situation with alternate currencies like e-Gold is the same, but with US$ and gold reversed. You may never actually touch a US$ at any point in the exchange, but the IRS requires that you continuously track the estimated value of your currency in US$ anyway, adding significant overhead to every transaction.
Lisp, and functional languages in general, do tend to nest expressions more than imperative languages like C/C++. However, when it comes to nested function calls, the only real difference is whether the opening parenthesis is placed before or after the function name. To use your example, is
(The ("professional" (appeal (of (forced (parentheses (is (as (bad (as (the (appeal (of (nested quotes))))))))))))))
really any worse than this C equivalent?
The("professional"(appeal(of(forced(parentheses(is(as(bad(as(the(appeal(of(nested(quotes))))))))))))))
Common Lisp is no more or less intrinsically readable than any other multiparadigm language I have encountered, including C and C++.
P.S. A more analogous example, given the way the sentence should be parsed in English, would be:
(declare-as-bad-as (professional-appeal-of (parentheses :forced)) (professional-appeal-of (quotes :nested)))
I believe the GP is incorrect; there are some things you can do with CPP which you cannot do with native D code, such as defining part of an expression or statement in one macro and completing it in another. However, such constructs are almost never advisable, and are rarely used outside of deliberated obfuscated code. The most common case I can think of is defining some sort of table (e.g. method tables in MFC) with separate macros describing the beginning and end of an opaque array, but that is not generally required in D.
Between compile-time evaluation, templates, type introspection & pattern matching, and 'static if', macros corresponding to arbitrary well-defined branch of the abstract syntax tree—which includes nearly all C macros—can generally be described in native D without resorting to a text preprocessor. Of course, if you do find yourself in need of a preprocessor, nothing prevents you from using CPP to transform D code before it's passed to the compiler.
While I agree that natural languages are imprecise, redefining your terms mid-argument is a different logical fallacy. Whatever single definition you choose for "software freedom", "for software freedom" and "not for software freedom" are complementary to each other, and thus do not form a false dichotomy. (Put another way, "Are you for software freedom?" is a question which can be answered with either "yes" or "no", once you've come to an agreement on the meaning of "software freedom".)
Strictly speaking, "666000." would be wrong. "666000" is merely ambiguous; without the trailing period, or another equivalent mark, it could have between three and six significant digits, inclusive. (See also Identifying significant digits)
It's not a false dichotomy if the two options actually do combine to cover all possible options. For example, "You're either for software freedom, or against it" would be a false dichotomy, because it omits the possibility of being neutral. However, a statement of the form "You're either A or not-A" is a true dichotomy, as the given options are complementary.
no rulers != no rules
It's a common mistake, but a state of anarchy does not require the absence of laws—only the absence of rulers. An anarchic society can still value and enforce a prohibition against murder, for example. Most non-pacifist models of anarchic society take the Non-Aggression Principle as a given, in some form, although they often disagree about the details—such as whether 'aggression' extends to one's property, in addition to one's person.
You should check your own facts before attempting to correct others. Yes, the standard template suggested by the FSF is GPLv2+, however this is only an example. It plays no part in the legal interpretation of the GPLv2 license. There is no difference between "GPLv2" and "GPLv2 only". If you license a project as GPLv2 then you are not "by default" licensing it as GPLv3, v4, etc. To do that you have to actually use the "or any later version" language.
In fact, if GPLv2 meant "or any later version" by default, as asserted by jdigriz (and apparently you as well), then "GPLv2 only" would also include "or any later version", and the GPLv2+ language would be superfluous.
GPLv2 says that it can be used under that license or any later version.
This is incorrect. GPLv2 is only GPLv2, not "any later version". Some projects multi-license their code under GPLv2+ ("GPLv2 or any later version"), but this is not required, and many other projects use GPLv2 exclusively.
There is no way that any past event can be proved, using this standard.
Then it's a good thing that science isn't concerned with proving anything; nothing is ever so well established that it cannot be called into question. Theories can never be proved—only disproved. The idea is to come up with an explanation which fits existing observations while also being both testable and falsifiable—not "provable".
My objections to your "testable prediction of ID" are as follows: (a) "ordered states" is vague and undefined; (b) by saying that they "might" be found, as opposed to "should be" found, you imply that not finding such states would not disprove ID; and (d) ID is rather broader than you imply, and not all supporters of ID would agree that intelligent design must include states we would recognize as "ordered". If you were to argue instead that the universe was designed by a being whose intelligence and capabilities are comparable to, and comprehensible by, humans, then that would be a testable prediction for the simple reason that we know what humans are capable of. (It would also be obviously false; the universe does not resemble anything a human might have designed.) However, the actual argument is that the universe was designed by a superhuman intelligence, and there is no way to falsify that. No matter what is found, we can always posit that a superhuman intelligence may be working to a design which we simply cannot comprehend.
What I discovered was that each of the evidences as a support for evolution is dependent on assumptions that may or may not be true.
Care to back that up with specifics? Keep in mind that we are discussing your supposed evidence (testable predictions) in favor of ID; the article in question was only given as an example of equivalent predictions in favor of common descent.
In addition, you would need to rule out that the similarities of species is due to them being from the same design house.
You really should read the follow-up article which addresses this and other objections raised by Ashby Camp: Theobald Responds to Ashby Camp's "Critique". In short, however, your point fails to consider that the similarities in underlying structure are not simply a matter of "reuse", but actually follow the ancestry of the species. When the same superficial function is found in separate branches of the tree the mechanism which implements that function tends to differ. This is not the pattern one would expect from an intelligent designer attempting to conserve designs. It is, however, the pattern one would expect from parallel evolution in the context of universal common descent.
Actually, RNA by itself is enough for life. It can serve in place of DNA for information storage, and replace proteins for enzymes and structure. DNA and amino acids have their advantages, but neither is strictly necessary in the beginning; they can be added later.
The idea that early life was RNA-based, rather than DNA-based, is known as the RNA World Hypothesis.
Thus, ID makes a prediction here: that there are ordered states that might be discovered with respect to complex systems such as life.
And if no such states are discovered, does that prove that ID is wrong, or will it simply be taken as evidence that we aren't looking hard enough? Can you give an actual example of an observation which would invalidate ID, and prove that there is no intelligent designer?
For some great examples of testable predictions within evolution—specifically, the core concept that existing species are related by common descent from a single ancestor—see 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution. Or, for a shorter read, you can find a few specific predictions listed under Evolution as theory and fact on Wikipedia.
It seems to me that the drive to cure disease is infused with the idea that there is (or was in the past) a more desirable state than the one the victim is currently exhibiting.
Certainly I can agree that this drive supports the idea that some people believe there may exist a more desirable state—specifically, one without the disease. However, your argument hinges on the concept that this state did in fact exist in the past (in particular, as the original state), for which you present no evidence.
I agree that any "difficulties" with evolution should be exposed, with a sense of proportion and in their proper context. Progress and the scientific method itself both depend on a willingness to recognize that no theory is ever so well supported that it cannot be invalidated and replaced in response to new evidence.
Of course, it is also important to recognize that even theories with known deficiencies can be useful, provided one understands their limitations. Newton's laws of gravity, for example, are known to be flawed; however, they are still taught in introductory physics classes, and are regularly used to model gravity under non-relativistic conditions. Modern theories of evolution are not identical to the original model proposed by Darwin; "the" theory of evolution has already been invalidated and replaced many times, and will continue to be invalidated and replaced by ever-more-accurate versions in the future as new observations are integrated into the model.
On the other hand, no matter what "difficulties" evolution may have, ID is not a scientific alternative and has no place in a science class. It makes no testable predictions and thus tells us nothing useful about the universe. A "theory" which is inherently compatible with all possible observations, past and future, is pointless. Why would anyone bother teaching it, aside from appeasing the prevailing religious establishment?
I don't necessarily disagree; certainly there is plenty of non-controversial material to study, and the course shouldn't focus solely on the topic of evolution and origins. However, any realistic introduction to biology must include of a study of genetics and species classification, which includes both the ongoing mechanics of evolution as well as mutation, natural selection and speciation—and it's difficult to discuss any of that without at least some reference to the framework which ties it all together.
Moreover, the scientific process which leads to the theory of evolution (and not, for example, creationism/"intelligent design") is an essential part of any science curriculum, including biology; one could even go so far as to say that teaching the scientific method itself is more critical than any particular subject within the science classes. Assuming that they understood the implications, I suspect that religiously-inclined parents would have just as much of a problem with a curriculum which "merely" teaches the scientific method, even if origins were never specifically mentioned. After all, a mind inclined to prefer science over dogma will naturally question the concept of creationism, and most likely have no deep-seated objections to the evolutionary model of origins when it is eventually encountered.
A myth is "a traditional story accepted as history; serves to explain the world view of a people". Do you dispute that your preferred version of the creation story, or any other variant, fits that definition? The phrase "creation myth" has nothing to do with whether the story is true or false. Creation in general is not scientific precisely because it makes no testable predictions by which it could be disproven. One cannot categorically rule out the possibility that the universe was created five seconds ago, much less 6,000 years ago, with the mere appearance of billions of years of consistent prior history. The absence of any testable predictions also serves to make any such "theory" completely useless; unlike a scientific theory, it tells you nothing about what to expect in the future.
As had been pointed out time and again, "proved true" is an impossible goal. There is always room for new observations which do not fit the expected pattern; the most one can do is develop a model which (a) fits all previous observations, and (b) makes testable predictions regarding future observations. A model which lacks the former is disproven[1]; a model which lacks the latter, like creationism, tells us nothing useful about the universe. The theory of evolution provides both: it is consistent with known observations, and provides testable predictions on subjects ranging from species classification to molecular biology.
[1] Note that even a model which has been disproven is generally much more useful than a model which makes no testable predictions. For example, Newton's theory of gravity has been disproven by new observations in favor of the theory of relativity; however, it remains a useful approximation so long as one does not attempt to apply it to relativistic conditions. An alternative "theory" like "intelligent falling" which naturally fits any observations you happen to make but makes no testable predictions of its own would be useless.
You just need to phrase the question properly. Rather than quizzing students on their beliefs concerning human origins, constrain the question to a specific subject: "According to the scientific theory of evolution, ...".
that Yahweh created the world in six days as per the Torah
If you include that particular creation myth you haven't really left out the Christian version, since they're based on the same text. The first five books of the Bible, including Genesis, are common with the Torah.
Still, it's not a bad idea, with or without the Christian version. Bonus points for bringing in someone to teach each myth with sufficient sincerity and charisma to leave the students with the impression that they're all equally valid (and thus all equally nonsense, since they can't all be true).
Sorry, but the original idea of copyright is a bad one: the use of coercion (fines, imprisonment, etc.) to control others' behavior when said behavior causes you no harm. (No, competition with your preferred distribution service is not harm; your ability to employ your own property remains unaffected.) Even granting that you have the best of intentions—and that, for better or worse, copyright privileges certainly do increase the amount of copyrightable works created, as with any subsidy—it remains wrong to use aggression for any purpose.
Borrowing the item in the first place creates the return requirement implicitly. The lender is not obliged to try to find it and bring it back, that's on the borrower.
That depends entirely on the contract. You obviously can't borrow something without the owner's permission, so there must be a contract in place granting you that permission; if, in that contract, the other party neglected to specify that you have to take action to return the property (or else forfeit your own alienable property in the form of penalties), that's their problem. In the absence of any specific contractual obligation to return the property it is up to the owner to recover it, and the borrower's only obligation is to let them do so.
Of course, normally a rental contract does specify penalties in the event the property is not actively returned, but there is no "implicit" obligation if that term is omitted.
Who's going to inform the RIAA?
What makes you think they would care? If they were interested in respecting property rights they wouldn't be in that business in the first place. Natural rights and copyrights privileges are fundamentally incompatible.
Not really, no. They have no obligation to take action to return the property, unless they agreed to that beforehand in a contract. However, they are obligated not to interfere with your action to take back your own property. Withholding the property from its rightful owner would be an act of theft.
In any event, communicating information is in no way similar to a loan of property. Once you've transmitted information to someone else they "own" it just as much as you do—it becomes a part of them. At that point you have no rightful control over how they use or further distribute it.
The standard example is that if you, just for laughs, shout, "FIRE" in a crowded theatre and several people are killed in the ensuing stampede to the doorways, you cannot smugly say, "freedom of speech, baby," and escape unscathed.
I should point out that I have always disagreed with this standard example. The fault for any death or injury lies with those who panicked and trampled others in their haste to escape. That is unacceptable behavior even in the event of a real fire, much less a false alarm. The same applies to so-called "hate speech" and "incitement to riot"—individuals are responsible for their own actions, whatever someone else may have said.
I also never said there could not be any consequences; only that there could be no legal consequences from mere speech, regardless of the content. Social ostracism and fines which you agreed to in advance as part of a voluntary contract (when buying a theatre ticket, for example) are perfectly acceptable responses, and do not violate one's freedom of speech. False speech (i.e. fraud) can also void a contract, but that is not a punishment for the speech; rather, it is a consequence of lacking the "meeting of the minds" required for any contract.
Your name may be public in the abstract, but the connection between said name and your comments on this website is certainly private (as in: not expressed; confined to particular persons or groups), and should be protected as such. I stand by my statement that if information is public there is no need to subpoena for it; the requesting party can find the information on their own. If a subpoena is required then all the normal protection for private information should apply.
P.S. If you want to be taken seriously in the future, drop the childish ad hominem attacks.
"Freedom of speech" means exactly that: there can be no legal consequences for anything you might happen to say. Anything less would be absurd. That (plainly unconstitutional, at least here in the US) exceptions are made for the categories you listed simply means that the government does not completely recognize our right to freedom of speech.
The really absurd part of this case is that the court is basing much of its reasoning on the idea that this information has already been made "public". Well, if it were really public, why do they need a court order to get at it? Either the order is about private information, or the order is unnecessary. Which is it?