Why on Earth is it relevant if a software project passes the test? Does it make the code better?

This is a completely made up non-issue. Should we start rabblerousing about the white guy Bechdel test in the NBA? What about the unfairness of native English speaking programmers in Russia? Should we start a test for them? No, because it's fucking stupid, and contributes 0 to anything other than the wallet of those who get "offended" about "representation" as a profession.

I totes agree, that guy is a cock mongrel. How dare he imply that all people are created equal, like he's some Jefferson of misogyny. It's almost as bad as the patriarchy's so-called Charter of the United Nations and their oppressive hatespeech about equality and universal peace.

They should know by now that a minority is worth much more than a white guy. It's like duuh, of course you cannot be prejudiced against white cis males, what planet are you from? Stupid cis-scum the lot 'em, right?

(For reference, the UN charter http://www.un.org/en/documents... . Check out Ch 1 2, and Ch 1 3. Specifically,

To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; ...)

Note the "without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion". Does that sound like the Bechdel test?

Sounds like it's high time for a Microsoft "exclusivity" bribe again.

What in the nine hells is this whining? It's a god damn app on a cell phone!
You want to "prevent the havoc"? Turn the damn app off! The world doesn't owe your delicate sensibilities a damn thing, and not every app must censor that which you may not want to hear.

Is this some kind of joke? Is it an Onion piece? Is it one of those far-far-far-left progressive campaigns again, where everything must be acceptable to everyone, or be literally Hitler and threatened off campus? I cannot make any sense of the accusations here, as it seems to be a completely voluntary situation.

>>"But evolution seems to have mainly selected biomolecules that are quantum critical, implying that that this property must confer some evolutionary advantage. Exactly what this could be isn't yet clear but it must play an important role in the machinery of life and its origin."

A scientist should understand evolution sufficiently well to not use arguments like this.

Why are we carbon based and not silica based? Either works just fine. Evolution doesn't pick the "best" option, it picks a "functional" option. After something has proven to function, evolution stops caring (until it no longer functions). Why iron and not copper in our blood? Either works fine.

Why quantum critical "bio"molecules? Because they work. There is NO other criteria. They could be better than the alternative, they could be worse, they could be the same. But they work. That is all we can assert.

Sounds like a good idea, but how does that work when the internet is involved? Does Facebook count as everywhere? What about phone calls? Mail?

It's a tricky system to get right.

It looks like fast lanes and slow lanes to me, just from a different perspective. Of course, if I'm wrong, and they build a better protocol for torrent traffic, I'm all for it. Improvements are great, and necessary.

If the new tactic is to simply prioritise torrent traffic, then it's a fast lane. What's the difference between prioritising 9 types of traffic and throttling the 10th? None at all. This could just as well be used to throttle unwanted traffic (let's say WB starts prioritising everything *except* torrent traffic).

Much like an overly broad law, it's great when it's used to improve the things we care about, but it could just as easily be used for the opposite. And should this new *great* idea be used as an argument to curtail the net neutrality rules (let's allow fast lanes but not slow lanes instead of banning both types), then you can expect the opposite usecase to come about shortly.

The one thing I'm certain of is that AT&T will happily screw you over for a dime, and any consumer-friendly initiative from them should be scoured under the looking glass several times over for the devils signature.

Not sure if troll or srs...

Smoking is pretty close to the worst thing you can do if you wish to lead a long and pleasant life (including the endgame).
Smoking has an unwanted effect on almost every cancer probability (including cervical/breast cancer for you women), every bronco-, cardio-, aortic-, pharyngeal- (all kinds), and endocrine- disease available (to name *but a few*). If this wasn't enough, the damage caused is from the smoke, meaning that second hand smoke is just as bad (and therefor affecting those in your vicinity to some degree as well). As a result, it's expensive as bloody hell to society, leading to a *deficit* in high-quality medical care socialist countries. Oh, and the nicotine itself, separate from ingestion method, also causes sleeping problems, gastro-intestinal problems, and headaches. So enjoy that.

For the poor epidemiologists around, smoking is a major pain in the ass, because it's a confounder in almost every damn longitudinal cohort study ever, meaning more math, more matching, more controlling for additional factors, and more tables.

On the plus side:
There are only two benefits that I know; the calming effect of nicotine can be helpful in reducing point stress (often negated by the *increase* in stress that comes from nicotine abstinence), and the *possibly* mild protection it offers from late-onset Alzheimer's disease. I say possibly because the evidence of this protection is no consistent.