Two classics. :)

1.Proof by ghost reference:
        Nothing even remotely resembling the cited theorem appears in the reference given.

2. Proof by reference to inaccessible literature:
        The author cites a simple corollary of a theorem to be found in a privately circulated memoir of the Slovenian Philological Society, 1883.

I didn't even know that the old one was still available, so I've been forced to use the new one. And despite all of the usage, I still hate it. Do they not focus test these sort of things?

The "clearer to use" thing is absolutely true, there's all of these buttons that do things that the vast majority of users are never going to want to do, and the functionality that people do all the time is buried. I've had to search online for how to do simple tasks way more often than I should have.

At least it's not the worst revamp I've had to deal with - the worst has to be GIMP, no contest.

fuel needed for the landing is inefficient compared to a splashdown parachute recovery

The barge/ocean is just a temporary measure. The vision is twenty rockets launching a day and returning to the launch site to prep for the next launch.

There were about 120 rocket launches last year. SpaceX's mission statement is to reduce the cost of launches by 100x, and utilization rates go up as costs fall, so it's not just 100x more launches - twenty a day is probably very conservative if they hit their price targets.

Queue the folks who can't imagine what anybody would do with more than 640 launches a year.

But it appeared they could come down slowly. Pretty close to hover.

Yeah, I think that's the inevitable end-game - there is plenty of time to make small adjustments right up until the point of contact with the solid parts of the planet. AIUI, they're so close to empty on the fuel tank after the burnback that they're trying to get it down on the pad ASAP. They can only attempt these landings for now on launches that don't require as much fuel as others - supposedly the next iteration can hold more fuel.

First stage has an RCS at the top? I've never heard about this. Where can I find more details about it?

Asserting something does not make it true. She absolutely has NOT. There is literally zero evidence to back up your claim, and a wealth of evidence that states clearly otherwise.

I would be kind of surprised if it was generally noticable

Amazon reviews are quite positive.

Don't move the whole boat. Move a steel plate on the deck with hydraulic rams.

Again, not the best solution. But at least better than moving the whole boat.

There is an EAW which lists four charges. This is what the UK courts work with. They have ruled it valid, properly issued, and in force, at every level of the courts system.

In Sweden, Assange is not "charged" for the simple matter that the Swedish court system use British/American laws and English language; nobody in Sweden will ever be "charged" because that is not a Swedish word. This may sound like nitpicking but it's actually a key point. The english concept of "charging" is under Swedish law split into two different concepts described by two different words: "anklaga" and "åtala".

Take the time to look them up in many different Swedish dictionaries (not just one). You'll find that there are variations on how they're translated, but each can in lay speech mean variously accused, charged, indicted, and other such words. Legally, however, they're quite distinct. A suspect is anklagad when there is belief that they committed a crime and feels that the person needs to be brought into custody. The suspect is åtalad when the case is ready to go to court. In fact, once they're åtalad, the case must go to court, within a short period of time. åtala-ing a person causes the commencement of court proceedings. There's a number of legal requirements before the case can reach this stage, including what usually amounts to additional rounds of questioning.

Assange is anklagad but not åtalad. And under the Swedish legal system this is precisely the stage he should be in. They can't bring him to trial because he refuses to hand himself over. The stage for bringing a suspect into custody is the stage that Assange is in: anklagad.

If you're looking for English words to clarify the difference, probably your best choice would be "charge" for anklaga and "indict" for åtala; in English "indict" sounds more formal and invokes more images of court proceedings than the word "charge". But the simple fact is, Sweden is not the UK and nor is it the US. Their legal system has its own laws and rules.

And terms.

Sorry, but the EAW lists them as charges. They're listed as charge #1, charge #2, charge #3, and charge #4. Asserting otherwise doesn't make it the truth.

Every level of the UK court system ruled the EAW warrant validly issued. Your parroting of Assange's lawyer's arguments that got torn up in court doesn't make them fact.

I could pick any of the UK rulings on this matter, but just at random I'll take the lower court's:

The main points made about Ms Ny’s lack of authority to issue the EAW are: 1) Ms Ny is not “the Director of Public Prosecutions” as referred to by the prosecution. 2) Whether she has authority to issue the warrant is a fundamental question going to the heart of the court’s jurisdiction in this case. 3) There is lack of clarity as to who is the judicial authority in this case.

The authority to issue an EAW is indeed a fundamental question. That question has already been determined by the Serious Organised Crime Agency. The certificate issued by SOCA on 6th December 2010 says “On behalf of the Serious Organised Crime Agency I hereby certify that the part 1 warrant issued by Director of Public Prosecution Marianne Ny, Swedish Prosecution Authority, Sweden, on 2nd December 2010 was issued by a judicial authority of a category one territory which has the function of issuing warrants”.

There is an important reason why the EAW must be certified in this way in each case. It is an important protection for the citizen. Unless the authority is checked by SOCA a person is at risk of being arrested and detained improperly. Further, SOCA is better placed than the court to consider who is the appropriate judicial authority for any particular country. If this task were not undertaken by SOCA then the court would be required to undertake a technical enquiry in each case. Many defendants are unrepresented and unlikely to be able to take the point. The court has a special responsibility to unrepresented defendants. In such cases the court checks the key elements of the warrant to satisfy itself that it is valid on the face of it. Neither the court nor the individual has the capacity easily to verify the authenticity of the person or organisation who issued the warrant. SOCA does.

Having said that, the court cannot and should not close its eyes to the possibility of a mistake. If there is clear reason to doubt the authority to issue the EAW then the court is on enquiry and should check that there has not been a mistake. Here there is simply no reason to believe there has been a mistake. I heard live evidence from a recently retired Swedish prosecutor. Mr Alhem told me
in there is nothing wrong with the EAW in this case. Similarly Brita Sundberg-Weitman said that Ms Ny is entitled to issue an EAW, although not on the facts as she understood them to be. Mr Hurtig is a Swedish lawyer. He may not be an expert on extradition but nevertheless he must have been
well placed to discover whether Ms Ny had the appropriate authority, and he has not suggested otherwise. Ms Ny herself has made a statement saying she has the appropriate authority. Counsel for the defence took me to various documents to suggest that there is no such office as Director of Public
Prosecutions in Sweden.

I was also taken to original documents, including the Swedish Code of Statutes. Section 3 says, with reference to the EAW: “A Swedish arrest warrant for the purpose of criminal prosecution is issued by
a prosecutor. The Prosecutor-General decides which prosecutors are competent to issue a Swedish arrest warrant”. Whether or not Ms Ny can properly be described as the Director of Public Prosecutions is surely a matter for Swedish law and custom. There can be no sensible suggestion she is not a prosecutor. Here, as throughout the preparation of this case the defence has been meticulous and has left no stone unturned. Nevertheless I am unpersuaded that any of those documents raise a doubt about Ms Ny’s authority to issue an EAW. Nor do I think there is anything in the point that there is lack of clarity as to whether Ms Ny or the Swedish Prosecution Authority issued the warrant. Ms Ny’s details are provided and she signed the warrant. Even without the SOCA certification I have no doubt that
Marianne Ny issued the warrant and is a “judicial authority which has the function of issuing arrest warrants”. warrant is issued for a purpose other than criminal prosecution.

But no, I'm sure you know better than every level of the UK justice system, including the supreme court, as to what UK law says.

Funny how you just parrot whatever the accused lawyer says because you like the guy, isn't it?

No, she did not. This is, again, the problem with the Assange echo chamber.

The leaked police report states that the interviewer saw that she (SW) looked distracted and decided to terminate the interview, that she then consented to a rape kit, and requested a legal respresentative. Her legal representative, Claes Borgström, then pushed the case on for her, including filing the appeal that got her portion of the case reopened when it was were briefly closed (AA's portion was never closed)

Are we supposed to believe that the poor damsel didn't know what her own legal representative was doing on her behalf?

It is a complete myth that she said she "wanted nothing to do with the prosecution" and "they are continuing on without her".

Anyone who's played Kerbal has experienced that one aplenty ;)

Not sure what the best solution is. For example, maybe they can just improve the control and stabilization software for the system as it is. I'm sure they're really hoping that's possible! It's probably the most likely and cheapest approach.

I'd be really "easy" to land if they had an RCS, just a couple seconds worth to cancel out any lateral movements and rotations - but that'd still be a lot of mass. Maybe if they had an RCS they could narrow / weaken / lighten the landing gear to pay for the added mass?

Or maybe the solution has nothing to do with the rocket. Maybe they need something to grab it on the way down? I mean, planes landing on carriers grab a hook, maybe there's a rocket equivalent for this? One envisions comic-book-ish solutions like landing in a giant net, but there may be practical answers.

Or maybe combine the two. Maybe there's no RCS on the rocket, and no grabbing system on the barge, but rather a supersized reverse RCS system on the barge, big jets that can be fired up and shut off in an instant, aimed at blowing the rocket to induce a leveling force on it.

Or maybe you don't need to apply a leveling force further up on the rocket - maybe you just need to provide some torque where it's touching the pad. Maybe the pad could be mounted on powerful hydraulic pistons to jerk to keep the rocket stable even if it's got some lateral or rotational inertia when it touches down.

I really don't know. But I really hope they get it. And I really hope it's the first option, because things start getting technologically uglier if you have to complicate the landing.

Libraries buy copies of music, then loan those out to the public. No royalties needed. Maybe not the same as a radio station, but if libraries are ever allowed and able to go mostly digital, they will become able to broadcast all over the world as easily as radio stations now broadcast to small areas near their transmitters.

This royalties scheme sounds like an attempt to quietly add a whole other business model and profit mechanism to the music industry, without them having to give up anything. Typical of the rotten deals big business offers the public.

Assange is just a SWATing early adopter.

Disinfo is the oldest game in the book. Assange is stuck in a hole in London due to the oldest. :sigh:

It could be a good opportunity to repair relations with an ally.

Yep - let's hope he's a smart enough opportunist to leverage the situation. Remember, the USG thought the Bolivia scenario was plausible enough to take extreme illegal action. So that confirms a willingness.