Whether you believe it or not is irrelevant. It's the NYC TLC policy.

Did you even read my initial post? Apparently not, as I said the following:

.. and I agree completely with your statement. Perhaps I came off the wrong way in my post. Allow me to be clear about my situation: In my parent's education/retirement funds, they had x amount allotted for my education, x amount for my brother, and x amount that was not to be touched (for their retirement).

I admire the author and his family for their work, but I take exception to the following line:

Once again, the NYPD, true champions of justice. I'll sleep better tonight knowing that I no longer have to worry about being run over by a speeding BMW.

No, but it seems like there are more dangerous criminals and murderers that the NYPD could be focusing on.

It's actually quite enjoyable to watch when some fucking moron pulls his extra-long cigarette boat into Ego Alley and has to execute a 52-point turn to get the damn thing turned around.

That may be true, but I'd like to think that the crew on this flight applied a bit of common sense and allowed access to the hallowed thrones in premium cabins.

Yeah, it must've stunk.

Hate to be a Debbie Downer, but the version of the 747-400 that Qantas flies on Santiago - Sydney actually has 10 lavatories — not much better, but a slightly improved situation. [Qantas]

Actually, aircraft in story is a Boeing 747-400. Qantas doesn't fly 747-8s.

Actually, by ruling out mechanical error, it seems to shift the focus to human error, presumably pilot error. If they claimed mechanical error, the blame could shift to Boeing, outsourced maintenance or suppliers, or any other entity somehow involved in the design/maintenance of this aircraft.

This entire case seems very petty to me.