It's not like anyone else with Wikileaks (which today amounts to only a handful of people) has any ability to change the head. As Assange put it, "I am the heart and soul of this organisation, its founder, philosopher, spokesperson, original coder, organiser, financier and all the rest. If you have a problem with me, p**s off." There were lots of people that tried to get him to step down in late 2010. They are all no longer with Wikileaks, either by choice or by being explicitly kicked out.

Wikileaks could have been something great, long lasting, a major global value to society. In its early days it really looked like it was heading in that direction. Sadly ego can ruin any project. When you feel the need to start blackmailing Amnesty International for nearly a million dollars by threatening to not redact the names of their sources if they don't pay up, you've lost the moral high ground.

I have to say, I have to agree with you. There's still some missing pieces of the Snowden picture and contradictions that need to be resolved to really understand all of his actions and motivations, but overall I think of all of the major leak issues that came up, he handled his the most responsibly.

Still would have rather he avoided Greenwald, who's always been a sensationalist self-aggrandizer, but at least he made sure there'd be some sort of filter to at least try to protect the innocent (I think the filter should have been even tighter, but no question that there needs to be a debate about the fundamental points of the leaks, and it took a leaker to make that happen).

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.