Huh? Could someone explain to me that it's a bad thing that Sony was investigating subcontractors and a foreign subsidiary for signs of corruption? Not being forced to, not being charged with it, but on their own? Isn't this what we want companies to do when they find evidence that there may be illegal or immoral activity among some of their employees? Or is this some sort of horrible shocking news that a company with 140,000 employees just within the main unit itself might have to police itself?

And let's not pretend that we're idiots here and that this sort of stuff makes up even the tinest fraction of a fraction of a percent of the leaked, non-redacted material full of personal information about regular employees doing nothing wrong.

An empty stage with no payload gets about 1 1/2 orders of magnitude more delta-V for its last kilogram of fuel than it got for its first kilogram of fuel when the countdown hit zero at the pad. And on top of that it's already got altitude, and can use the atmosphere to shed unwanted lateral momentum or aerodynamically redirect it to change direction, with little consumption of fuel. Its these things that make flyback a lot easier than it sounds at first glance.

Still not "easy", but a lot easier.

Is "The Vehicle" a euphemism for something? ;) What exactly are you talking about loosing?

(And I hardly think that suggesting a more powerful RCS as a backup (backups being critically fundamental rocket design) is "redesigning the whole thing"). I don't know why they went with cold gas thrusters, but hydrazine RCS thrusters are mature tech, one that even SpaceX themselves uses - they're reliable and have a good power to weight ratio for their size. I presume there's a reason they went with nitrogen instead, but I don't know that reason.

Damn kids. And turn down that that racket, we're trying to sleep over here!

Well, gee, perhaps I should just mouseover to see what each button does? Oh yeah that's right, there's not even a bloody mouseover for half of the buttons. Gotta just try clicking them and seeing what happens.

Lets look at your list. 5 bloody buttons for Google Integration. Which again, the vast majority of people using Google Maps want nothing to do with. "Gee, I need directions to my friend's house. I could really use a button to open up Google Drive right now!" And hey, let's put them in top of the screen where most people expect to find their most important controls!

Hey, that view type? The one in the lower left, which is probably the least likely place a person would look for it? Let's make that only represent half of the possibilities for the view type! Let's put the other half in the upper left right near the directions button!

Hey, pictures? Let's make them suddenly appear when you turn on satellite. But not on the map - my god no, why would you want to know where on the map the pictures are? Let's make them take up a massive thumbbar at the bottom of your screen, clearly people will want that! What, people are complaining? Okay, let's put a tiny line when you mouseover the image that only emphasizes how the ordering of the images has no correlation to where they are on the map.

There's three buttons on the bottom right, to the right of the streetview person. Let's see what each of them do. PSYCH! Haha, gotcha, they're all just one button, and it's not even a button, just a toggle to the annoying "photo bar". The seemingly disconnected arrow icon is the same thing.

Clearly we've now got too much stuff on the screen, so let's take away people's ability to choose their zoom level, because nobody gives a rat's arse about that, what they really want is a quick link to Google Drive!

Language input is in the upper left. Language choice is in the setting bar on the lower right. Making a route is in the lower left. Sharing a link to the route is in the setting bar on the lower right. And of course, all of the stuff on the lower right is below a bloody link to what you've been searching for on Google, as if that has any bloody purpose in being there whatsoever. But a link to My Maps? No no, not there! It's in the bloody suggested searches entry on the upper left.

Whatever flock of drunken geese designed the interface should never be allowed to touch design again.

Interesting - just saw the most recent video and you can indeed see the RCS trying (and failing) to keep it upright. Maybe a RCS thrust upgrade is in order...

SW doesn't even have a twitter account. You're confusing AA and SW. And AA mentioned in a forum conversation just last year that she was the victim of an assault and the perpetrator was never brought to justice, and that his followers still continue to smear her for daring to report it.

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.

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.

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".