Sorry, there's difference between "goverment does legal stuff which I don't like" which is completely reasonable claim, and actual criminal activity by goverment which seems not to be a case. But it's politics, and we don't like politics, do we? :)

Seriously, people, get your act together. Some parts of Patriot act maybe is anticonstitutional, and must be repealed, however acting on current set of laws (not how immoral or injust they are) is not criminal. Saying it is bad is enough for your emotional message, thank you :)

"Thisi is not helpful. Courts and judges have no say in what is right and wrong. You need to take a stand personally and not use the law as a proxy."

Helpful for what? For emotional outrage to support concrete political agenda? I'm looking for sane and balanced stuff here. I'm not saying what's NSA done is right, but I'm not saying what's wrong either. Because yes, I don't fully agree some of "liberty" definitions, and I fully don't know extent of situation.

I agree with some of notions - secret court is very dubious oversight and it must be improved (existence of this court is known for very long time, and no voter base has even cared about it), it is hard to buy for me as specialist that hoarding so much data really change anything of success of anti-terrorist efforts (but I can be very wrong, depends on workflow). However, I can agree with arguments from other side that communications allow baddies to move frighteningly fast. But if you allow this to frighten you (NSA actions reeks of desperation, so much data ain't practical), you can easily miss real threats.

"As you say, we live in a complex world. The law is not suitable to use to identify right from wrong."

I can hold my own views what is right and wrong, which is purely subjective matter. For public those things are different to each person. There's reason we have laws. Because what do you think is right might differ from mine POV.

For me "hero" would be person, who would expose really criminal activities (these isn't), while bracing true dangers. He wanted to make a sound political stand (same as Assange), because everybody following news knew that NSA were hoarding data. He must be treated fairly, he must be judged by laws he broke (or didn't - for judge to decide), but he won't get hero parade from me. But that's only and only mine opinion - you can have your own.

"He is a far better (and more effective) patriot than Bradley Manning; definitely more like Daniel Ellsberg."

Each time I hear this "he is patriot, he is hero", I really really want to punch someone. Each of persons have had their own reasons to leak information. Those reasons usually are nothing to do with patriotism at all.

"The fact that he was motivated by moral outrage isn't really relevant, as much of the information he revealed had nothing whatsoever to do with the things he was unhappy about. (And Assange going on an ego trip didn't help.)"

Manning was motivated by something completely else, and Assange has been egoistical maniac from day one. Said this, I won't say anything of outcome of Wikileaks, because that it is completely different discussion. We live in complex world, and you can't easily ignore something because motivation has been not so shiny and beatiful as you would like to have.

As for this same guy - I actually don't care what was his motivation. It clearly was mixed with fear of losing job and prosecution (running indicates that). But he is libertarian too, so it's only human. I don't say what he's done is wrong, but he will face court, and judge will have to decide where that balance hides.

In meanwhile I really hope this will kickstart discussion in US how to handle national security more properly - and then force Obama to do what he had to do four years ago.

Obama can said that, but last word is for court house of course which will have to evaluate both gains and loses.

And it seems he indeed broke not only law, but agreement with it's employer.

"Most significant leaks?" For NSA asking Verizon to provide call logs to which SCOTUS have said Fourth doesn't apply? Almost everyone agrees there's nothing criminal!

So while this could cause interesting discussion how to handle national security, I really don't see how this changes anything.

Because it destroys artifical fabric of society they try to create - as they would have any chance in this. In same time they enjoy their social networks (trough websites and tv) which allows them to live in bubble of selective memory.

Also for what I have heard for last five years, quite big part of Turkish society has all reasons to hate current goverment. Yes, they are democractically elected, but that doesn't mean they can't listen to opposition. They have to - if they want to stay longer in their place.

And using full blown police against peacful protest will fireback any time. Trust me.

Maybe. But he would be good side kick for half a season for sure. Also Statham characters are anything but no cynical.

He would, maybe even too much. But BBC can't afford his tab :( Also he lives in US now.

Geee, I'm in awe...not.

Bullies learn this from their parents. And there are lot of parents who laugh at everyone who is weaker, looks stranger, etc. etc. And that without natural assumption that children are well...cruel by nature. They learn what's hurt and what's not trough learning. If they have "very good" examples, result is death of the girl.

It should be done in two steps - first, bullies should feel really uncomfortable about what they did for whole life, that's will keep them in check. Second, we must educate our children how to shut it off. I was seriously bullied as kid because I was strange, emotional, etc. I couldn't stand it, but at one point in my life, I just decided to switch it off. It caused other problems in the end, but I was no bullied anymore. I survived.

And let's educate our children talk to us. That's first step.

"A company can sell bonds even with crappiest credit rating... (though the crappier the rating, the steeper the interest rate has to be in order to attract buyers), so no selling bonds doesn't mean what you think it does. (You appear have bonds and loans confused.)"

A company can, sure, and it can go bancrupt on actives when they have to pay returns on those bonds next month. Usually people don't subscribe to such deals. Maybe Tesla is sucidal, I don't know.

Bond is effectivelly a finance paper about loan. It just works differently, but result is the same.

"Only to those who are impressed by meaningless gestures."

I guess you just don't like them, do you? :)

Being capable of refinancing means you have solid credit rating and that means investing world believes Tesla Motors will be capable to repay this loan.

For Tesla it is just changing creditors, but I think they wanted to make this gesture of repaying it sooner. It sure sends positive message about company's future.

I want that stuff you smoke to dream about "no IRS" world of yours. Really.

Or you must be libertarian :) That explains everything (no offense).

Debian Wheezy - Linux kernel, GNU tools, 100% of software compiled for i386/64.
Debian GNU/Hurd 2013 - Hurd kernel, GNU tools, 75% of software compiled for i386/64 (I'm ready to assume it doesn't have support for other platforms but might be wrong).

Hurd has been conceptual official kernel of GNU project for years (But then Linux came and put Hurd on backburner). Thanks to renewed interest it's development has picked up and therefore we have some actual distribution running with it.

Main problem for Hurd would be support for hardware who needs closed parts (firmware, binary drivers) as Hurd propably is GPL3 which essentially forbids usage of such things without disclosure to user, essentially killing any chances of having binary Nvidia driver supported. Still, most of open source stuff can be ported to be used with it.

"Which highlights another good reason to be a plumber. Everyone understands why the job is necessary but nobody wants to do it. Which is pretty much the exact opposite of IT."

Not exactly true. I am about to finish my very late (in age of 33) BSc in CS. Guess how many students (in percentage) choose to learn high level sysadmining or hardware engineering? Yeah, maybe 10% to each (or even less). Sysadmins sometimes have it worst than plumbers. In result, there are very few of them. Hardware engineering is fun, but also much harder than software engineering.