and, maybe the Rolling Stones?

Since it's most probably a russian missile, this proves that they have a self-destruct mode that can be activated before they could hit their target.
This implies that the plane shot down by a russian missile in Ukraine was destroyed on purpose, since the missile could have exploded before hitting its target.

The capabilities of thus unknown, but most likely sea or air launched, missile tell you nothing about those of an SA-12.
It also gives no indication if whoever shot MH17 down knew that it was a neutral civilian airliner. Especially since it turns out to be the case that knowing what you are shooting at is one of the most difficult parts of using such a SAM system. (Even more so if all you have is the TELAR.)

That's great, and I use these sites all the time. BUT, the majority of flyers are casual leisure passengers. They are unlikely to figure out which of the dozen 757 configurations Delta offers they are flying on.

Unless the airline starts putting aircraft registration numbers on the bookings you'd need to also check out something like FlightAware to see which planes usually fly the routes in question.
IIRC the most obvious example of an airline with a large fleet of identical aircraft has non reclining seats anyway.

I immediately thought of the 1st episode of the reboot of Battlestar Galactica, where 99.9% of their modern military force was rendered inoperable. No. Thank. You.

The author may have been more thinking of "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan". Yet oddly the concept is not mentioned in "TOS: The Ultimate Computer".

This statement is bogus. 3rd parties cannot sue under copyright law. VLC is developed by multiple parties, some of whom wanted VLC in the app store & others who didn't.

Portraying this as Apple & VLC vs the FSF is a misrepresentation of the situation.

Except in most jurisdictions police have immunity from prosecution for crimes they commit while on duty. That's how they can kick the door to a house down, gun everyone down, then shrug their shoulders and say "oops, we misread the address on the warrant." and walk away free of any responsibility for just having murdered an entire family.

With it working rather differently if the family sucessfully defend themselves against the "burglars".

Man? Have you ever dated?? Women are the single most argumentative, must be right, cant change their minds, NEEDS AN APOLOGY EVEN WHEN PROVEN WRONG group out their.

Even if this were true it's a non sequitur. Wikipedia "edit wars" are not (hetero) dates.
Apart from both involving people they don't have much in common at all.

That's not the argument that was made. It's not "worse" that some fields are dominated by women, but it is fact. The argument is that a concerted push to end sexism *just for women* is itself sexist. The motivation of these programs to end sexism is called into question since they are sexist themselves.

As well as unlikely to be effective. Mandating discrimination to end discrimination is something only a politician could have come up with. It's even possible for such programs to end up being to the disadvantage of those they are supposedly intended to "help".

Wikipedia is all about (1) information about the world, and (2) a neutral perspective on that information.

You are unlikely to get a "neutral perspective" anyway. Especially not with something which has any "political" dimension.
Someone who does not know a topic may not realise that they could be getting something which is very one sided.

Why must everything be gender balanced? Why not let women do what they want instead of trying to force them in to places that aren't necessarily their thing?

It would also be kind of ironic if the efforts to "gender balance" were partially responsible for the "problem" too.

I'm just still trying to keep up.
Is this week...
a) "women are as tough as men and can do anything men can do, and need no special favors because those deprecate her strength" or


Possibly even more interesting would be WHO is advocating these positions. Of course in politics it's perfectly possible for there to be "doublethink".

It only proves her point if you are intellectually lazy enough to believe that her only detractors are trolls. There are plenty of rational reasons to critisize here. Have people already forgotten about her receiving 180000$, then publishing videos made with footage almost 100% taken from other youtubers, without any attribution?

Since the "trolls" will tend to draw attention away from the failings of the "research" the question of "cui bono" needs to be addressed.

The sad thing is that a lot of serious trolls aren't 13 year olds. They're 40 year olds, with kids and wives who you think would have some brains, but sadly still seem to get off on just being miserable pricks.

Unless they are identified nobody can know who they are.
They may not always be who they are assumed to be. There have even been cases of "auto trolling"...

Anybody that would consider her being a hate-monger is out of touch with reality.

I don't know how asses even come into play here.