How did they get the IP addresses of people using a streaming website that they don't operate (and I doubt the records where handed over by this non-German website)?

No. ArXiv papers are generally not resubmitted after being peer reviewed (that would be against the rules of most journals), and no peer review is done on ArXiv.

The GPL exists because, at present, copyright on code etc exists. If copyright did not exist on code, then the GPL would no longer be necessary.

You may have caught a cold but attributed to flu since your sister was infected with it (correlation doesn't imply causation).

I am aware of that list. The operating system itself is not on that list, specifically the kernel as well. Consider that OpenDarwin shut down for the express reason that they couldn't get the code off Apple, I don't see what you are talking about.

No it isn't open source. They haven't released their code in a long long time.

Is this a new variation to the Schrodinger's cat problem?

The "test" was already done in Japan which stopped the jabs years ago. It made no difference to autism rates.

If you copy the code for your own use without distribution you have infringed the copyright. Distribution does not even come into it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VAasVXtCOI Where is your dowsing God now.

Not all evidence is about visually seeing things happening. Do you deny quantum mechanics because you can't see it directly?

Ever thought that maybe Evolution is the ground rules for things and with Creation, you've got little (or big shoves) in changes a' la animal/plant husbandry or genetic engineering?

You appear to be saying that what if your God just dabs his hand in the odd bit to muddle around with things. That's unfalsifiable, unnecessary, and special pleading.

Neither theory is correct (seriously) or even remotely close to "complete" because there's gaps, peices which don't "work" within the framework of the theory- or "and a miracle happens" like the cartoon where the proof has that in it.

I think someone has been drinking too much of the creationist kool aid. You seem to have elevated creationism to a theory, and then made some assertions from nowhere about evolution (possibly you are about to make the fallacious "missing links" argument). Then you appear to say evolution is wrong for no apparent reason.

For the same reason that governments and companies divide themselves into departments and increasingly finer subdivisions thereof. This does nothing to diminish the fact that the constituent parts work only for the whole any more than the fact that an human can be separated into organs, then into cells, then into atoms does to diminish the fact that a person it is much more than a lump of matter. Forest for the trees, almost literally here.

This is empty sophistry, much like a degree in the Humanities eh? There is no argument in there, and it is ignorant of how universities and departments actually operate.

A bunch of drone engineers who know only how to operate a slide rule, and with very little expose to creative endeavor more complex and deep than reality TV will not be good engineers. Period. It doesn't matter how much they are pushed, without an enthusiasm to understand the beauty in the world, whatever they make will be crap. *cough*china*cough*.

You act as though the humanities are the source of creativity, and you appear to express a stereotype that a technical course only has drone like work; You are claiming engineers and scientists lack "an enthusiasm to understand the beauty in the world" and are some sort of drones if they don't study the Humanities. Followed by some apparent racism.

Besides that, with nothing to ponder but questions about coulombs and diff-eq, burn out will be fast. I go so far as to hypothesis that having the brain operate in a different section a few times a semester will not is not only a good thing, but that being stuck in a little bubble, studying the same thing for 14 hours a day, every day, is actively harmful.

Your fourth paragraph is just nonsense. The less said the better.

I think you are underestimating the average high school educated person with a sweeping generalisation. The average high school student is not a club-wielding troglodyte.

You are mistaken if you think universities are organised solely so that people of completely different disciplines can interact. Maybe that was true to an extent in the 13th century, but it sure isn't now. Why do you think that universities are arranged into schools and departments around specific expertise? It is so that relevant experts can be gathered together.
Undergraduate students go to university to pick up expertise in fairly narrow and specific topic areas. If you want to become a jack of all trades stick to high-school.