The only purpose of Little Boy was identical to AK-47s single purpose, or Sarin for that matter.

Perhaps you have heard of the term "weapons of mass destruction"? A nuke or a chemical weapon is a WMD, a firearm is not.

That's not to argue that designing one or the other is or is not ethical, but the arguments about designing a singular weapon operated by a human being -- a rifle or handgun or sword or knife or club -- are not the same as the arguments about designing WMD.

Computer science is race and gender neutral, sure. Most fields of human endeavor are.

The culture of practitioners of computer science is not. The phrase "booth babes" should be adequate demonstration of that. Or see RMS's "emacs virgin" "joke".

The culture of practitioners of computer science exists within, and is influenced by, general American/western culture. At minimum, effective CS education has to be conscious of the biases this instills. It has to remind students, "The construction of software is a collaborative process. Don't be a dick to your collaborators. You probably don't intend to be, but we live in a society that encourages us in various ways to be dicks to people of various racial, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender, and orientation groups. Leave any such dickishness at home."

Education in general also has to be careful to not make assumptions about student's cultural background. I remember seeing one standardized test question of the form, "Regatta is to boat as <blank> is to car." Pretty strong cultural bias as to who is going to know what the heck a regatta is. That's one's pretty obvious, but I also remember one where kids were asked about a poem that mentioned "buttercup". Inner city kids not familiar with the wildflower thought (quite rationally) that it was a cup full of butter.

Are there similar biases in CS education? I don't know that there are but I'm open to the possibly. It's hard to see such biases from the inside.

government intervention in the scientific process...

Involvement is not the same as intervention.

Scientific research is a public good.

Aren't you forced to consent to breathalyzers at any stop while driving your car when you receive your license?

You are never "forced to consent" to anything. If you're forced, ipso facto it is not consent.

You can have your license yanked for declining a breath test. But that's strictly an administrative action, not criminal.

If you're not drunk, the cops have no probable cause to ask you to blow, so your lawyer can argue that, and you could blow a false positive. So if you're not drunk, blowing is not in your interest. If you are drunk, naughty naughty, but that aside you wouldn't want to give them evidence to use against you.

From what I have read and seen, you are best off declining to take either a "field sobriety" test or a breathalyzer test. Never consent.

That blue wall can't be sued...

Oh, it very definitely can. It takes a while but activist friends of mine sued successfully. Some sorts of suits have more chance of success than others, but suits over bad cops do win or get settled fairly often.

Is your assumption just because they could do it, that they are? Despite the fact that there's no benefit to getting DNA samples from random drivers but there is a huge time and monetary cost to do so?

If they are taking a cheek swab, they are already getting your DNA. That might not be what they are after at the moment, but they have your DNA, along with your license plate number, so they have a pretty good idea who you are.(And if they're checking your driver's licence, they know who you are.

The cost of storing that DNA, in case you should later become a person of interest or until the cost of DNA analysis becomes trivial, is minimal. Rather like the cost of storing data about your electronic communications. You're not interesting to them now, but you might be someday, and the surveillance state isn't about to let an opportunity go to waste.

...90% of cops are really great people that really are just trying to serve the public. But 10% are bad and the others cover for them.

Those who cover for the really bad 10% are, ipso facto, not "realy great". They are accomplices and accessories to the crimes they cover up.

Who is more respectful, 1) The guy who is honest, even when it offends some women? 2) The guy who hides his true opinion in order to 'have a quality relationship'?

If his opinion is not respectful, neither of these hypothetical men are respectful or respectable. Sexist assholes are sexist assholes, whether or not they conceal their sexism.

That said, the purported "research" is gibberish, and I hope it is satire in and of itself. If it's not, then it deserves at least some gentle mockery. I don't know if "C Plus Equality" does that well, or if it's just juvenile dick jokes, but a self-publishing platform (which is what Github boils down to) shouldn't be in the business of making value judgments.

The British (and the Europeans) have perfectly adequate laws against hate-speech

There is no such thing as an "adequate" law against any content of speech. Censorship is obscene. It's a shame that many British (and Europeans, and some Americans) don't understand that when you threaten someone at gunpoint (which is what an arrest is) for the content of their speech, you're doing thing much more evil than any speech can be.

...isn't it a bit pretentious for somebody not a citizen or residing within a given country to tell them they need to work at making their laws more like your own?

Boy, it sure was pretentious of citizens of other countries to tell South Africa that it should let Nelson Mandela out of jail and end apartheid. Or citizens of counties outside of China to express disappointment over the whole tank think in Tienanmen Square. Or, you know, the Holocaust, wasn't that an internal matter for German law to decide?

Seriously? Is that the argument you're making?

Money is certainly "political expression" when used to pay for political expression.

No, there is nothing "certain" about that assertion.

Money used for political purposes is bribery. There is no difference between "I will give you X dollars if you vote for bill Y" and "I will buy your campaign X dollars worth of advertising if you vote for bill Y." And there is no effective difference between "I will buy your campaign X dollars worth of advertising if you vote for bill Y" and "I'm thinking of buying your campaign X dollars worth of advertising. By the way, bill Y is cool. Wink wink nudge nudge," which is more or less the state of American politics today.

Where do you draw the line, without outright censorship of some means of political expression?

Even if outlawing bribery were getting close to censorship, I have no problem with censoring the fsck out of for-profit corporations. They have no rights, and by definition their only possible interest in speech is to improve their bottom line. Google, BP, Halliburton, whoever, shut your piehole. Real people are talking.

That said, consensus is a really shitty way of determining courses of action in important matters.

So...you prefer force, then? Fine, I'll kick your ass until you agree that consensus is a better way to make decisions than force. :-)

...the atheist "thumpers" were one of the great scourges of human life in the last 100 years.

Really? Do tell how promoting non-belief in god(s) was such a great scourge.

âoeAtheism is indeed the most daring of all dogmas . . . for it is the assertion of a universal negative.â - G. K. Chesterton

No more "daring" than the assertion of the universal negative to the existence of invisible pink unicorns.

Chesterton was a good writer. Shame that his views on religion were so childish.

For the record, the oft-quoted statement "Do as thou wilt be the whole of the law" does not mean what people think.

Especially if people think it's related to Satanism. Crowley delighted in playing a wicked character, the "Great Beast", but he was very definitely not a Satanist.

Man, these guys are total fucktards:

Ahem. Perhaps you should calibrate your sarcasm detector.