There's no need for that hypothesis.

I did say sane.

By any sane measure, it's been long in public domain.

Ion engines have wonderful Isp, but very low thrust. And it's not just that a journey with such an engine would be longer - low-thrust transfers are inherently less efficient than Hohmann transfers, negating some of the Isp advantage. Moreover, you couldn't reach a nice portion of c with current ion engines: their Isp is good, but not that good. Most of them only have at most a few hundred km/s of effective exhaust velocity, limiting the maximum delta-v to like 0.3%-0.5%c under any design with realistic mass ratio.

We should've been using NTR for the past 30 years or so: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NERVA.

I was pretty excited by Google+, but the whole "real name" fiasco turned me off completely. Not that I really care that much about using a pseudonym vs my real name, but I think that it just isn't Google's damn business what somebody wants to call themselves.

If it's not on Steam, it's on Pirate Bay.

"Already invited? We've temporarily exceeded our capacity. Please try again soon."

With that, what good is an invite anyway?

Blind people lack required features for Google Apps.

They're going to show 2girls1cup and record viewers reactions, then make a new movie from that footage.

Furthermore, one has to remember that even if the accusations are true, it does not in any way invalidate Assange's work or "pro-leak" arguments. Doing so would be a simple, straight ad hominem.

*sigh*

Your analogy is false because no one is blaming the victim here. Or have you seen someone claiming that it's the soldiers' fault if they get killed as a result of the leak? It's obvious that it's ultimately the fault of whoever pulls the trigger. That doesn't mean others are not to blame for creating the circumstances that allowed the killing to happen.

You want a better analogy? Imagine a boarding school for girls. Let's say that the guard on night shift in the dormitory has a habit of sleeping on the job. A journalists finds out about it and writes an article for the local newspaper. Another man reads it, sneaks into the dorm at night and rapes one of the girls.

Now, whose fault is it? Obviously not the victim's. Apart from being the victim, she's not a party in this discussion. The rapist is of course guilty of the actual crime. But who's guilty of creating the circumstances that allowed the crime to happen? The journalist, who exposed a hole in the dorm's security, or the guard, who created that hole?

My opinion is that the guard it guilty. His job was to protect others and he failed it. Similarly, it's the fault of whoever was responsible for keeping the documents secret if their exposure results in somebody's death. The journalists were simply doing their job - drawing public attention to the failings of people who were supposed to protect others.

While I obviously have no first-hand knowledge of how real spying works, I assume that for the greater part it's paying a lot of money to people with access to classified information so that they give it to you. There's no reason Al Qaeda couldn't do it. Even if it doesn't, it's quite possible that a third party - one with a real spy network - gives them some information in order to undermine the U.S. military.

False analogy, next please.

The point is that if Assange managed to get that information, it's likely that real spies got it too, and before him. If you want to base your strategy on certain things being secret, you should do a better job at keeping them secret. If any lives are lost as a result of exposing this, the blame is with those who failed to contain that information, not Assange.