You're technically correct - TSA can't force you to give them your passwords, but they will "detain" you until you do. If that means you miss your flight or end up locked in a cell, they don't care. That is why I refuse to fly anymore - we have a terrorist organization running our airports and they will do everything they can to permanently ruin your life if you so much as wince when they shove their fingers up your ass.

Today, the United States Supreme Court ruled that cell phones cannot be searched without a warrant. When asked for comment, police chief John Smith told this reporter "I don't give a fuck about your Supreme Court or your Constitution. If we want to search your fucking phone, you bet your ass we'll do it - and if you try to stop us, we'll shoot you. Kneel, peasants."

IDKFA wasn't nearly as useful as IDDQD. I don't remember the no-clipping code...I guess 20 years will do that to you.

Of course. The youngest member of SCOTUS is 59 years old. If they can't program a VCR, do you honestly expect them to understand what "cable" means? To them, a computer is a magic box just like a TV is a magic box. The will always rule against new technologies because they do not understand them.

The administrator doing that would be sued into oblivion and never work in education again. Seriously, people love to make up absurd circumstances for why we need strict government control over certain things, yet those things would never happen due to the consequences.

It's not free, it's paid for by the Finnish taxpayers. Yeah, it's a neat loophole, but it's pretty douchey for you to go to Finland, get your advanced degree, then go back to your home country and leave the Finnish taxpayers holding the bill for it all.

Jesus Christ, learn to do some research. It's been established many times over that in the 18th century the term "well regulated" meant "well functioning / in proper order". It wasn't until the late 19th / early 20th century that "regulated" came to mean "highly controlled by the government". Thus a "well regulated" (meaning well trained) militia needed the freedom to own and carry arms. It's rather annoying that those who want to completely ban a civil right are the least knowledgeable on the subject that they argue against. It's like a redneck who's never even seen a Muslim or read a single like of the Qu'ran arguing that we need to ban Islam.

Wow...just...wow. The ignorance is truly astounding.

Except in the real world, a 100 lb woman cannot beat up a 250 lb man and people cannot dodge bullets or catch knives in their teeth. You watch too many movies. The reality is that a gun is the most effective method of defending yourself, especially for people who are physically weaker.

Because Europe (or at least the major European nations) already had vastly lower murder rates than the US before any gun control laws. Guns don't cause crime, culture does.

Which is supported only by your emotions and not by evidence. Literally close to half of the adults in the US own guns (and we're just talking the non-criminals here) - if guns had anything to do with "a culture of violence", the US would literally be a war zone. Hell, data on those who get concealed carry permits shows that they are the least likely people to commit a violent crime and have a significantly lower rate per capita of committing violent crimes than police officers - yes, that's right, you're several times more likely to be murdered by a police officer than to be murdered by an ordinary American that carries a concealed gun.

No, they can't because the existing political parties control who gets access to the ballot. Sure, you could try to do a write in campaign, but there's all sorts of legal loopholes to make that incredibly difficult. The existing system will not change that in order to make it easier for you to remove them, they are currently in fact making it harder for you to have any choice between the Republicans and Democrats. That's one issue that Republicans and Democrats are very bi-partisan on - doing everything possible to block anyone else from the ballot. You have a delusion that the existing political parties will vote to end their reign simply because you tell them to. Ron Paul is a great example of this - he was too popular, so the RNC changed the rules for the primary to ensure that their preferred candidate (Romney) won. The Democrats are no better with the incident in 2012 of the members soundly rejecting putting religion as part of the party platform and then the DNC put it in anyways to try and get more religious people to vote for Democrats. Corruption is beyond rampant and you will not eliminate the corruption by playing by the rules instated by the corrupt politicians.

I'm saying that it's almost impossible for an honest person to get elected and that even the better people that get elected are rapidly corrupted by the new-found power. It's not stupid to vote against that single issue because 1) incumbents almost always get re-elected and 2) they can always BS and claim something prevented them from achieving their goals and that they "need more time" or that there were "bad things in the bill" and that they didn't want to cause more harm than good.

They are worthwhile things to study, absolutely. However, they are not worthwhile things to spend $150k+ learning when you won't be able to get a job afterwards. If your family is insanely rich and you know that you'll never need to work a day in your life, then go ahead and major in one of those fields and have no useful skills. For those that need to pay the bills, it's a horrible way to spend a decade of your life and more than enough to buy a home..

Bingo. The worst professors I ever had were tenured and didn't give a damn about the quality of their teaching and any student complaints fell on deaf ears.

Because it's at least trying to do something, even if you know it's a wasted effort.