So I should dumb myself down with a hammer before writing code?

You can do it that way, but I prefer whiskey.

(Obligitory XKCD reference)

Even atheists like to hedge their bets. Read about the soul catcher software license, featuring the SBDAWF.

(As a certified Old Fart, I actually remember MJSS and their "unique" EULA. I thought it was hilarious. I also never pirated their software, just in case!)

I quoted from another blog that I've come to trust over a period of time. YMMV. That's why I provided the link. Feel free to form your own opinion.

Actually, the poll results are basically in alignment with my personal biases. I think it's the right result, reached the wrong way. That kind of thing bothers me more than outright fabrication. I hate it when "my side" uses bogus arguments to advance the cause.

It all depends on how to you define "human rights", and what means you advocate to achieve them. For example, my personal definition of human rights includes freedom OF speech, specifically including speech that is hateful and offensive. Other people define human rights to include freedom FROM that kind of speech.

The fatal flaw in the poll is sample bias. The membership of AAAS is not representative of "scientists" as a whole. There are no requirements to join this organization, other than a willingness to pay a ~$150 annual fee. It's likely that members have an "interest" in science, but may not be scientists themselves. Also, the organization clearly has a "liberal" political orientation, which likely discourages "conservative" scientists from joining. This is a classic case of self-selection.

I'm not passing any judgment on AAAS or it's members. I'm saying that it's wrong to represent a poll of AAAS members as a "poll of scientists". The statement may be literally true, but it's extremely misleading, to the point of intellectual dishonesty. It's like taking a poll of NAACP members, and then reporting that "90% of People strongly approve of President Obama".

The Half Sigma blog points out a serious flaw in the design of this poll...

There is a Pew research study purporting to poll "scientists." The question I immediately want answered is, what's a "scientist?" The answer, as far as Pew is concerned, is anyone who is a member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

The AAAS is a liberal organization with stated goals such as "Increase diversity in the scientific community," "Use science to advance human rights" (sometimes in collaboration with leftist-sympathizing Amnesty International), "Sustainable Development" and "Women's Collaboration".

You don't in any way have to be a real scientist to be a member of this organization. All you need to do is send them $146. School teachers are especially encouraged to join, and no one should confuse a grade K-12 school teacher with a real scientist.

You don't grant yourself rights. In the U.S., we have the notion that The Creator grants people "certain inalienable rights ...

You make my point for me. My inalienable rights exist independent of the government. If's up to me to choose what rights *I* grant *to* the government. Deciding what I get to read (on the Internet or otherwise) is not one of the rights I've given away.

Every nation has a different mix, and you get to choose where you live.

Not true. See also: Illegal Immigration. As accidents of birth go, being born in the USA is certainly a much better deal than being born in most other places on Earth. I freely admit I've got a much better situation than somebody born in $(Random_Hell_Hole). That I have it better than most doesn't preclude me from pointing out the imperfections, or require me to accept them.

Believe me, there are plenty of people in the US who would happily give up their "right" to an all-access Internet in exchange for their "right" to free healthcare.

Apples and Oranges. Everybody in the US has a right to health care. They just don't have a right to require somebody else pay for it. I'm not asking taxpayers to fund my Internet surfing -- I'm saying that the government has no business deciding what I'll read.

... some people will always find a way to do evil but let's make it as difficult as reasonably possible for them.

I agree, right up until the point where making things difficult for evil people impinges on the freedom of non-evil people. When forced to make that choice, I always choose the rights of the non-evil, even if it means allowing some evil to exist. Others, apparently including you, would optimize in the other direction. I doubt anything either of us could say would change the other's mind.

most governments do have the right to determine what you look at

No, they don't. I never granted them that right. That they do it anyways is due to an imbalance in power. As a practical matter, I have no effective way to stop them (e.g. their army is bigger than mine). That doesn't make it right.