Right, because there are no government agencies other than the NSA who might have made those requests. Most of those requests were made by local police departments and are related to ordinary crimes, missing persons etc and nothing to do with national security.

Slashdot is not anti-authoritarian. Majority of slashdot posters, and certainly modders are liberal, which is as authoritarian as it gets.

Comedy Central, which I'll admit has some left leanings, but in case you didn't know, has been known to roast Obama, as well
 
The problem with Comedy Central is not that it has obvious left leanings but that it is a political news (or rather political opinion) channel that attempts to influence public opinion as much as any other political news outlet, but without any fact checking requirements of a real news organization. You can catch, say, Fox News or MSNBC reporting a story in a blatantly biased way, even misreporting or ignoring important facts, and you can say so, and in theory their reputation should suffer. If you do the same with Jon Stewart, he will just laugh and say, hey it's just comedy, ha, ha. But it's obviously not just comedy. He is having it both ways.

Sometimes I wonder it Obama's support of NSA domestic spying is just a clever way to get Republicans to come out in favor of personal privacy.
 
Gee, how much kool-aid did you drink?

You are part of the problem. You are comparing an idealized version of the best part of your side (and giving them every possible benefit of the doubt and making up excuses for them) with a cartoonishly exaggerated version of the worst of the other side. Let me guess, ALL your information comes from watching and reading liberal media?

The only party in favor of personal privacy are the Libertarians and a small but growing libertarian camp within the Republican party. Mainstream Republicans and Democrats don't even consider it an issue worth thinking about.

It's too late once you already bought the thing. There should be a message on the box in big bold letters, "this device may be used to watch what you are doing in your own house" or something, like on cigarette packs. If you don't mind, sure buy it but you should have the information ahead of time.

I wouldn't say there is no value as Justices may need to have a chance to clarify something etc. It is vastly overrated though and it is one of the reasons most Justices do not want cameras in court during oral arguments. As Scalia said, if the media is willing to follow all the relevant details of a case from beginning to end and devote a large amount of time to it (such as on CSPAN for example) then cameras would be fine, but just focusing all the attention on few soundbites and back and forth between judges and lawyers during oral arguments would be entirely unrepresentative of what the court actually does.

I don't see why is this such a really, really bad idea? Yes both companies have a history of sucking but if Microsoft wants to move more into consumer electronics and have its own stores, this seems like a quick and low cost way to do it as opposed to starting from scratch.

Nobody said anything about the curriculum.

Btw, fields that operate within reality, such as sciences, economics, business etc are actually least likely to have liberal professors, it's the ones that operate in the clouds of smoke such as liberal arts courses, humanities that tend to attract them the most.

Your childish posts are not really worth replying to and I shouldn't have done so in the first place. But for what it's worth, your posts in this thread can be translated as simply stating that being liberal is right and being conservative is wrong, therefore if you are liberal you are right and if you are a conservative you are wrong. That doesn't even qualify as a logical fallacy, it is simply nonsense.

Contrary to the uninformed popular opinion, Clarence Thomas has been very active during his time on the court. He just mostly leaves questions in oral arguments to other judges, which is only a small part of what judges do. It used to be common for Justices to take that approach, but recently it stands out since the others have started to enjoy the sound of their own cleverness much more, whether it contributes to the resolution of a case or not.

You are calling him delusional but you are actually exposing your own delusions.

Liberal bias among university professors has been confirmed in too many papers to mention, I'll let you google it yourself but here are a few examples

We are talking over 90% of professors in certain fields identifying themselves as 'liberal' or 'progressive' and a similar bias in donations to the two parties.

The dumb kid cannot go get a paying job, that's the problem. How do you get a paying job when your resume shows literally nothing, zero, except perhaps graduating high-school (if that) which is the case with many young people, especially from poor backgrounds? And on top of that when your crappy school and your poor, uneducated parents didn't even give you skills to introduce yourself properly, never mind any useful work skill or work ethic. Until you grow a power to FORCE employers to hire people even against their will, i.e. forget about liberty and switch to a full on communist dictatorship, they will simply not pay money to dumb kids to do crappy work and potentially do more harm than good to their company. It's the attitudes like yours that cause 50% under-25 unemployment in countries like Spain, Greece etc.

But what if their work is not realistically worth even the minimum wage to the employer? What if they can get a more experienced person for the minimum wage instead of a dumb kid who never did any work in their life?

It's not slavery. It is a way for young people with no experience and no valuable skills to contribute to the employer in exchange for money, to instead trade their labor for work experience which they can later use to make real money. The concept of apprenticeship has been around for centuries and nobody ever said it was immoral until you just did.

And who are you to decide that rather than the employer and the employee involved? You learn a lot just from being on a movie set, working in a hospital, or in a senator's office or in a science lab. These are experiences that are extremely hard to get and valuable and many people will gladly do them for free without any of your additional arbitrary conditions.

There are jobs that people really, really, really want to do for zero pay. Why wouldn't you allow them to make that decision for themselves?