The charges against him are listed here: http://www.haguejusticeportal.net/eCache/DEF/12/444.html (first two PDFs). You'll notice that they are all violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The UCMJ is applicable only to members of the military, not people generally. Manning's situation is entirely inapposite.

No, there isn't. The US does not have an Official Secrets Act. Unless there are special circumstances (like agreeing to submit to contract or military law), it is not a crime to share or acquire secret information. See the Pentagon Papers case. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers#Legal_case

Actually, the fighting words doctrine, in the limited context in which it still exists, is only a limitation on your First Amendment protections. In other words, the government may prohibit and punish fighting words. This is an entirely separate issue from whether fighting words give rise to a right of retaliation by private actors against the speaker. In nearly every context, violence undertaken in response to fighting words is illegal, and may subject the one committing the violence to criminal penalties and a civil suit.

Try https://www.google.com/dashboard/. It has everything associated with your Google account, and you can manage most of the information. See also http://www.dataliberation.org/, and, in the future, https://www.google.com/takeout/

United States v. Wong Kim

Actually, the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dormant_Commerce_Clause exactly prevents states from taking this sort of action.

The Model Penal Code disagrees.

Model Penal Code 223.2 Theft by Unlawful Taking or Disposition.

(1) Movable Property.
A person is guilty of theft if he unlawfully takes, or exercises unlawful control over, movable property of another with purpose to deprive him thereof. Section 223.3 deals with obtaining property by deception, specifying in some detail the forms of deception that may constitute the offense. Section 223.4 similarly specifies the forms of threat that may constitute theft by extortion.

(2) Immovable Property.
A person is guilty of theft if he unlawfully transfers immovable property of another or any interest therein with purpose to benefit himself or another not entitled thereto.

The comments to immovable property say that "[i]mmovable property, principally real estate, is stolen if one unlawfully transfers the property of another, or an interest therein, with purpose to benefit himself or another not entitled thereto. The major purpose of the distinction is to avoid theft liability for such conduct as trespass or occupying real property beyond the terms of a lease." Copyright infringement is not theft. It is copyright infringement.

The laws of thermodynamics would like to have a word with you.

Those solar panels trap energy.

House analogy. If you want to cool your house, do you trap the energy inside of it, or do you systematically pump it out with an air conditioner?

Why do warmers never understand the laws of thermodynamics?

We Are Pentium. Division Is Futile. You Will Be Approximated.

It's worth whatever I feel like paying for it.

If that's not enough to cover costs, then maybe the invisible hand is telling them they're investing too much.

Because, I hear you think, they can then also harvest the tetrahydrocannabinol-rich flowers and smoke themselves into a stupor.

Not so, unfortunately. First off, only the unfertilised flowers produce plenty of THC. This means you have to keep the male plants far away. Doable, there's even something called 'feminised' seeds, but still a bother.
A bigger hurdle, however, is that the smokey stuff is Cannabis Sativa. The stuff used to make paper, rope and other hemp products, is Cannabis Indica, which doesn't make a particularly good smoke.