I guess all his tweets had to be removed from the Internet because they were so horrible that just reading them would make you want to go outside and start killing people.

I think a more accurate description of American politics is two corporate parties with minor differences on social issues. Neither party does a very good job of representing the interests of the general public. Trying to place the two parties along a single left/right axis is just a game played by the media to give the public the illusion that they have a choice, and that one of those choices matches their interests.

Maybe you didn't hear of Yemen? He also stepped up military operations in Pakistan, and increased CIA involvement in Somalia

From wikipedia

A bit more than just logistics.

You do remember that we invaded Iraq before Bush's second term right?

Both of them, of course.

Who are "they"? How do you know it's the same person/people? Do you know some of the members of anonymous personally? If so, please contact the FBI immediately for processing.

And compare her with the unshaved, tattooed man. I guess they're trying to promote the (educated) bad boy gets the girl stereotype.

So you would rather have no job than take a pay cut? I agree that $20 per hour is not great, but why not take the lower paying job until you can find something better?

I thought the message of LulzSec was "We're in it for the Lulz". I don't see any reason to doubt that they believe their own message.

There is also a case that could be made that he had a moral and legal obligation under international law (to which the US is subject), to expose the crimes he saw.

I think this question is already answered that most, if not all, of the information leaked by Manning should not have been secret. From what I've seen the information falls into basically two categories, either it's innocuous, or it reveals immoral and often criminal behaviour. Neither of these should have been kept secret.

Calling him a vigilante is quite a stretch since he didn't really punish anyone other than exposing what they were doing.

I would hope that preventing war crimes and exposing government wrongdoing is more than just his "cause of the week". Maybe you believe the things he exposed were just not that serious? In my opinion killing civilians should be taken very seriously, and it should be punished appropriately instead of covered up.

I don't really buy this argument. Yes, many businesses will round up the prices, so you might be paying up to 9 cents more than before for certain items. A few businesses might actually round down to compete, since the different between $1 at one store and $.9 dollars at another store is noticeable to the average customer. Obviously this will not have significant effect on big ticket items, a $500 TV is still $500 with or without the pennies. The place it could have more effect is on small items, for the average consumer, the best example is probably groceries. So let's say you buy 50 grocery items per week, and the price increased an average of 5 cents per item, that's $2.50 extra in your grocery bill. I would argue that's not that significant for most people. Taken over 1 year you pay about $130 than the previous year on groceries. The bottom line is that stores that try to jack up the price because of a change like this would likely be noticed by the customers. If you are suddenly paying 10-20% more for common items, you start to notice, and you might shop elsewhere.

The other side you have to look at are the advanatges. So one less digit means less change you have to carry in your pocket, less change in the cash register, less cost for the government to make the pennies and nickels, etc. So, IMO, the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.

Redesigning the penny and nickel to be cheaper to product seems like a complicated solution to a simple problem. Just eliminate both pennies and nickels and drop the last digit of prices.

You are right, that changes 1 and 2 were pretty much all the extra security we needed after 9/11. All the extra TSA theatre is not about making us any more security, it's about making money for various corporations and for the politicians they own.

I balance my desire to get there faster with the desire to avoid tickets. Conveniently, I can do this fairly accurately because I know the rate I get tickets and the cost of those tickets, based on 20 some years of driving, and getting a ticket once every several years.

On the other hand, I have no real data on bad things that could happen to me by virtue of giving up personal data to a company like Google. Nothing ever has happened bad, to my knowledge. I doubt the chances of something bad happening are high at all.

That is a totally different thing than speeding and tickets....one is a well-known risk that can be calculated and balanced against other priorities fairly easily, the other is just a theoretical risk.

How is it stupid to not care about privacy, especially if you can't give a single tangible reason it harms them?

I mean, I guess you could say I value privacy in the sense that I don't go to nudist colonies because I, like many people, consider what I look like naked to be private information. But that doesn't mean I am going to call someone "stupid" because it doesn't bother them if other people see them naked.

Yes, we all know he was engineer for Pink Floyd, but seriously, isn't his name most known for his own stuff? (Eye in the Sky, etc)