Well, that plus the fact that by sending an unencrypted email that is stored on the mail servers of an unknown number of ISPs and mail forwarders, they are (probably) violating the privacy notice that says they are only sharing his data with affiliated parties, government, etc.

I was going to suggest S/MIME backed by certificates issued by a low-cost/free certificate authority (this would be a good service for the Open ID foundation or Amazon to get into, since they already have a widely-used SSO service), but based on the discussion above, that solution isn't 100% reliable, so I'd like to hear some ideas that:
* are easy for stupid/lazy/cheapskate users and merchants to use
* guarantee authentication (signing) and encryption, excluding the message routing. I'm not proposing a mail anonymizer service.

It would also help if gmail would implement this as a feature. They're big enough they could act both as certificate authority and mail server.

I'm pretty sure the felony prosecution is bogus, considering what Polk county is like in general. But I'm going to set the race debate aside, since no one is going to change any minds on that subject anyway. What I'm looking at are:
1) The explosion was "small" but was apparently big enough to be heard pretty far away. This wasn't a test-tube "pop" experiment with hydrogen. On the other hand, no damage to people or property was reported. So "was it bigger than a firecracker?", "was it bigger than a cherry bomb?". And what prosecutions for other commercially available "explosive devices" have taken place in Florida in the past? You know those cases must be out there. Fireworks are sold legally in most parts of FL and all it takes is an adult stupid enough to provide the fireworks to an equally stupid kid.

2) She elected to do it on school grounds and not in the science lab or at home. I think this was more of "let's reproduce that YouTube video" and less "science experiment" than is being claimed. OTOH, it clearly was an _experiment_ and not an attempt to actually damage anything.
3) We have no information on what, if any, safety precautions she had in place. Being a teenager, probably none, but we don't know.
4) There's a strong hint that she's protecting another kid here. If she was just doing it on her own, she could have done it nearer to her home. I bet they'd drop all charges if she coughed up a name, and it wouldn't surprise me if the overblown response is just a form of coercion because the authorities have the same suspicions.

From my POV for a expulsion, I'd be looking for something like a 1/4 stick of dynamite sized explosion, and for a felony prosecution, I'd be looking for actual damage to body or property. There's certainly enough intent and stupidity on her part here to justify a suspension and maybe a misdemeanor prosecution for attempting to cover it up as a "science" experiment, but I don't see evidence to go beyond that.

One unfortunate choice the linked press release makes is the phrasing: "Until now, scientists had only theorized the cause behind the phenomenon known as LED “droop” ". This just plays into the hands of people who complain that the Theory of Gravity and Theory of Evolution are "only" theories".

Correct phrasing: "Until now, scientists had only hypothesized the cause..."

You can only pour through the gaps after your brain has been turned to mush by the unintelligible documentation. This could take some time.

Remember a few years ago when weather.com and The Weather Channel tried to make the National Weather Service stop issuing free public satellite imagery and forecasts?

Any chance that NOAA/NWS satellite funding was cut to achieve their objective of privatizing the weather service by less-direct means?

Nah, our noble legislative branch would NEVER do something underhanded like THAT...

Screw the realities of advertising. If a site is willing to risk infecting their viewers and themselves for a few extra bucks a month, and they block me for using NoScript, they (and their advertisers) don't deserve my business.
https://www.networkworld.com/news/2010/092810-study-top-web-sites-riskier.html

Unfortunately we're too late. At this point a hellfire would probably have no visible effect on her appearance.

I note that the key phrase of the filibuster is about "killing Americans on American soil". So neither Republicans nor Democrats have a problem with killing Americans abroad? I think I better cancel that trip to Germany. What a subtle way to enforce travel restrictions while seeming to allow freedom of movement [/hyperbole]

Seems like trade between the US and China DOES affect politics and policy: we're becoming more totalitarian and restrictive even faster than China is opening up.

I'm mostly with you except on the point where you call your opponents angry whiners...I thought the point of this thread was that partisan politics are part of the problem. The lack of outcry against the growth of executive power under both Bush and Obama is insane. Bush 1 was a bit excusable by post 9/11 hysteria, but for the past 8-10 years, it's been clear that this is more about control and power than about fixing real security problems. What I envision is the entire intelligence community freaking out because they can't intercept all the information anymore and trying to regain control of the "situation".

OTOH, I'm not familiar with the "three new wars" that you claim Obama has launched. Care to elaborate?

PS - If you have land in Florida and you favor Republican energy and environmental policy, you may need to think things out a bit more. OTOH if you don't believe that sea level rise will affect property values in Florida during your children's lifetime, I'll be happy to sell you mine.

Actually, I think it's just shady self-interest and preserving the status quo. They will dump their support for any particular special interest in a flash, if that group stops providing value to them in furthering their own ambition.

"Sadly, you'll have to wait until there's a Republican in the White House before Reid or Pelosi speak against the drone strikes."

I don't see the minority leaders (McConnell?) on board with the filibuster either. This is a power structure issue not a partisan issue.

PC Pro's tester wasn't overly impressed. 'If the face was a good enough indicator of mood then it should have tagged me as "freaked out on business technological ennui," not simply "happy", and no police force would accept a description of someone as "aged between 45 and 75 — that's the gap between Daniel Craig and Jack Nicholson.'"

So in other words, they've invented the first robotic psychic?

I believe in Texas the legislature is entirely in favor of the right to bear arms. Freedom of movement, religion and speech are a bit more problematical for them.

Correct, but some of the small blimps at sporting events are unmanned and carry cameras. There is likely to be an impact to broadcasters in the long run, if not he short.

I think the best we can hope for is that the legislation is amended to only criminalize if the photo is taken while in the airspace of the affected private property. Otherwise, the "public view" doctrine would apply, as interpreted by the courts in cases of "was it a peeping tom case or an indecent exposure case".

Note the key phrase "unmanned" in the legislation. If he's flying the plane, no problem.

The legislation is discriminatory against the use of satellites and drones rather than pictures taken manually, and as others have mentioned would criminalize Google Satellite view and Street View where the pic was taken by a driverless car. Since some of the blimps above sporting events are unmanned, this could also affect broadcasters. The intent seems to be to make it more difficult to take pictures of real property without exposing the photographer to the risk of trespassing charges, or the cost of chartering or owning a small plane or chopper.