Perl surely. And 4 lines of that is anything but "simple".

Ah, but not all cyclists behave like that. The car should also blacklist the right side in consideration for those cyclist who actually signal and turn the same way.

I saw, I considered, I LOL'd.

It would be interesting to get an idea what the effect is.

No. And that is just the strawman I've seen over and over again.
Teaching the scientific process is trivial. Learning the accumulated data it has given us is not. Focus where it is due. Nobody (that I have seen) is suggesting not to teach the process aswell.

Again, the strawman. Why could the facts of evolution not be taught? They look pretty overwhelming to me, and even if taught without any interpretations.
That is the beauty of science. Any crackpot ideas die on their own accord, if "political or religious" interpretations are not allowed. If an idiot kid does draw the wrong conclusions from the evidence its their loss - and you just argued for their right to do so.

Finally, we have an answer to that. Not sure if I like the answer, though:
Youtube.

Seems to be 100% flames above. But what is so wrong with the suggestion:

A school's idea is to give a general understanding to the students in things. Since there has ben a huge amount of science done over the past few milennia, isn't it only natural that these researched facts get the focus rather than the process? The other way round means making everyone re-invent the wheel, leading to them learing about that particular "wheel" ony and missing the big picture.

Understanding the scientific process is essential, but that is not something one can really teach above a pretty basic level. It follows automatically for anyone who even tries to think at all. Sure, there are in-depth topics like error margins on your Amp-meter or ethical questions in medicine. But focusing on such matter over the accumulation of facts is a complete waste of students' time. At least untill they reach university levels.

The last part of prohibiting religious or political interpretation of facts is just plain good manners, and essential in any conversation with an american. Of course, it could be just me that never have heard a non-political argument on the climate denialists part, nor a non-religious interpretation of facts suggesting creationism.

So what is the fuss here? The above comments are full of strawman, smokescreen and ad hominem arguments. Did I miss the one that answers my doubts?

TFA is a F:n video!

Perhaps we are looking at this the wrong way round?
Could it be that their intention was to block all of SoMe, politics and wikipedia, to allow students to concentrate, discourage c&p homework, and to encourage students to think for themselves?
The "think of the children, block the pr0n" is just a cover.

And I missed the point where OP said someone had already made the open-source stuff available for free - in the windows app store.
Just because its open source doesn't automatically mean you can "apt-get install" it on Windows.

From TFA: the message that pops up to the victims ends with:

I have a real hard time respecting that copyright...

Make drugs (three of them), not war!
Intersting idea - how are you planning to sell this idea to the US military?

Teach me right not to c&p...

8.27 Ã-- 11.7 would be even better!

That is definetly not the environment attract the proper staff to build sports cars in.