Finding the recorders had been shut off will provide immense support for the idea a deliberate act was taking place.

When you get right down to it, life is 100% fatal. Everybody who is alive is going to die. Everybody who was alive and is not any more, has died. Everybody born tomorrow and the next day and the next day and the day after that, is going to die.

All of them tragic and sad and with loved ones left behind, but nothing can stop death. Nothing.

If every car can be automatically worth investigating, then so can people. After all, cars don't do anything without people at the controls (at least for now anyway), so if a car is interesting, then the driver must be absolutely fascinating.

And it won't matter if the driver is walking down the street or driving, they might drive soon. Heck, if you buy alcohol in LA, they should go ahead and book you for DUI because, you know, you might drive. Or beat your wife or kids in a drunken rage, set the house on fire and go on a stabbing rampage in a hair salon. You might do these things. Might as well assume you will. Stand still while we book you for murder in that hair salon. Wouldn't want to accidentally have you fight with arresting officers.

So, Joco, I had no idea who the hell you were when I stumbled across the PopSci podcast from the moon, which was really awesome and still what I think of when I think of your work. Not all these songs everybody else thinks of. No, for me it's a wacky but informative podcast.

So what happened? Why did they stop? How come you don't talk about them?

What's the point of pointless what-ifs? It will not be a Tesla, or a Taurus or a Leaf or whatever. It'll probably be a Tahoe or another limo.

And by the way, there will be more than one of them. They always send at least two identical vehicles, and keep spares on stand by.

Yeah I get that the logic is different. The court decided based on the exact wording of the law, which they are changing last I heard. One worries about laws rushed into battle; but one worries more about the laws they spend time trying to pass. Good results are rare.

Laws have a serious need to catch up to the 21st century. A local case where involved a man who emailed pictures of his parts to a recipient who didn't want them. The police got involved and prosecuted under laws related to sending unsolicited porn without an envelope over the pictures marking them as adult content or some such thing that you have to do when you send unsolicited porn. The judge threw out the case on the grounds that email has no envelope so it simply didn't apply. The law had no concept or provision for what happened, and one could wonder why the police chose that route. But it didn't work. Obsolete law.

My pondering on the expectation of privacy is just that I would have none if I wore a kilt, for example. While I certainly would not expect upkilting, the only thing keeping it from happening is expectation of proper behavior on the part of other people. History shows counting on people to behave is not necessarily a good idea.

That's one of the reasons there are so many laws, after all: to encourage compliance and penalize the offenders. However in the case of a kilt or dress or skirt, this particular problem can be prevented entirely by choosing to wear a garment not vulnerable to such invasions.

Oh now I know this sounds too much like "her clothes = she asked for it" but I think that's a totally different (and rightfully ridiculous) thing. I am not suggesting bottomless clothing = any invite to anything, however I chose to dress tactically for the environment I plan to be in. From shirt to shoes to whatever covers my legs. I was in an environment where upkilting was likely, I would probably wear something else, same as if I was going to be in thick brush or spiny plants or walking on broken glass or hot furnace slag.

Yes I would go out into the world assuming there would be jerks with shoe cameras everywhere. And I would make it difficult to catch me and more difficult for them to remain walking and capable of reproduction afterward. I have a fondness for knees. And every jerk with a shoe camera usually has two of them. :P

This decision makes a kind of sense to me, and it's not difficult to understand. A woman in a dress or skirt wears that clothing with the knowledge that a breeze, for example, could come along and remove whatever modesty might exist. The classic Marilyn Monroe/Subway vent thing.

Therefore, there could not be an expectation of privacy when that type of clothing is worn. Because exposure can be an issue and a risk that is just accepted, or else they'd wear something else.

As a guy, I don't understand a lot of why women do what they do, such as carrying handbags and wearing clothes with no bottom like a dress or skirt, and how this manages to happen across culture or continents that have nothing obvious to do with each other. But it seems to me having the wind potentially expose your privates -and with the risk that is for women, is kind of a drawback, along with the lack of protection to the legs.

FWIW I may be a neanderthal for wondering such things but I still think upskirting is horrible and not how people should behave in this society. It should be a crime because it serves no purpose except to exploit the victim or target.

They can 2.oh this all they want. I am holding on to my Keurig B70 until the thing dies. Which, given Keurig's awful reliability, has probably already happened in 7 out of 12 universes. But for now it still works!

And when it dies, it goes back to Costco for a new one. HA! Take that Keurig!

PS: Keurig coffee is not THAT good. It's merely convenient. The company often mistakes these for being the same thing. They are not. When they DRM it all to hell and make it less convenient, it will become another -nt word and that word is irrelevant.

Breach and also defamation or slander as these accusations about discrimination were never actually put to a trial. The parties merely agreed to settle. With the settlement gone, and no trial, it's back to his word against theirs and clearly they have suffered some damages to their reputation in all this breach.

The only thing keeping this from being a financial bloodbath for this family is how badly the school wants to eat them alive, or not.

Yep. His lawyer's bills still exist even if the money no longer does.

His kid really stiffed him for 80 + 60, not just 80. I bet she pays her own way through college now.

IANAL, but not only do they not get the $80K, presumably they still have/had legal fees related to this case which will need to be paid somehow. Likely they were to be paid from this money or from another pile of money from the school, but also likely that any such payout if it existed was also terminated by the breach of agreement.

So basically, Dad not only doesn't get 80K, he still has a legal bill to pay. And he has no job. This is made of win.

And now that the stuff has been made public, the school could possibly sue for breach of contract as well, and maybe defamation since they technically settled and didn't admit anything and weren't convicted of anything. However, the plaintiff's accusation is now in the open where it should not have been, has damaged the school's reputation, etc.

What a mess. Can they un-have this child? That might be the best option.

As the FA points out, you need a GOOD fit for a mask worth anything to actually work. The real danger for a mask like this is that correctly fitted or not, once you start using it, you tend to have to mouth-breath to overcome the drag from the filter material. This means whatever you are breathing in bypasses the filtering your nose provides and instead goes deep into your lungs.

This can be a very bad thing, especially if the mask doesn't fit well anyway.

There is also a possibility to hyperventilate by forcibly mouth-breathing for hours at a time. I've done this on work projects where I had to wear a mask the entire time. It's also tiring due to the extra effort just to breathe.

There is a very similar problem with sunglasses. Put on dark glasses and your eyes tend to widen and open. If light is leaking in around the lenses, then just like your lungs and a mask, your eyes will receive more unfiltered light than if you had no glasses on. And worse if the glasses are scratched or damaged, the sunlight can get in that much easier.

The commonality between masks and sunglasses is simply that any system that is expected to protect you has to be used correctly and the human response to it also needs to be understood by the user. You need to know that a mask will make you want to breath deeply AND if you do that with a shitty mask or one that is badly fitted, you will get sicker and/or injured.

Most people think safety warnings are for "the other guy" so they don't care anyway. People think they are invincible. Oddly, not one of them has ever been right.

OK, riddle me this: how are porn, piles of cash, illegal drugs, exotic pets, or god forbid a hamburger in any way a threat to the airplane, and if they are not, why does the TSA give a damn if they're in baggage or not? Shouldn't the TSA be focused on safety rather than generic law enforcement? Oh not as sexy perhaps but exactly what is the TSA (keyword Transportation) protecting and from whom?

And for all the TSA screening and checkpoints and xrays, how does any of that stuff offer any protection what so ever to the people lined up at security waiting to be screened? Suppose, for example, a bomber decided to come to the airport with a huge backpack bomb and went all the way through the line until they were surrounded by hundreds of people in the queue, and then detonated it. The casualties would be extreme, perhaps as bad as taking down a whole plane. Except now it becomes dangerous just to stand in line anywhere. The TSA's ability to prevent such a thing? Zero.

Oh yeah my point. All sea salt originated as land salt.

Ok except for that which formed in stars or as a chemical reaction.

Not exactly. The salt in the oceans was there because rain fell on rocks and soil or whatever and dissolved out minerals and metals like sodium, which later concentrated in lakes and seas and early oceans and eventually some of it formed those salt deposits we mine.

But fair amount is still in the modern oceans where we humans pretend it's different enough to spend extra to have on hand. Really it's just sodium and trace minerals that have all cycled through fish for a long time. They pee it, we eat it.Yum.

The fun part is that salt is STILL being dissolved out of rocks and dirt and carried off down streams where it eventually ends up in the ocean.

Also, some amount of sodium is returned to the oceans thanks to kidneys and modern sewage treatment. We pee it, fish eat it. Cycle loops.

The strangest thing about sodium is its connection to hypertension. This is a rather salty world. We humans should have evolved to cope with the sodium levels instead of having it as a weak point. But then nature does like to use such things to weed out the weak.