Radiocarbon results suggest a single origin and rapid diffusion through cultural transition networks. A petroglyph from Newspaper Rock, a site along Indian Creek in southeastern Utah. Credit: David Hiser/Environmental…

A U.S. Air Force F-35 takes flight in the Middle East in support of Operation Epic Fury, March 2, 2026. U.S. Air Force PhotoA U.S. F-35 Lightning II stealth fighter jet was damaged during combat operations…

The House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure advanced H.R. 5688, Dalilah’s Law, on Wednesday, sending it to the House floor. The bill is named in honor of five-year-old Dalilah Coleman,…

I have covered so many of these videos over the years…and I will never stop covering them! Because the best disinfectant is always sunlight! And that’s the point the man in this video is making too……

Gambling content 21+. The New York Post may receive an affiliate commission if you sign up through our links. Read our editorial standards for more information. Two potential dark horse teams meet on…

Surprise release finds the former Beatle digging deep into his time with Wings with three hours of interviews and music. Continue reading…

Designed in 2002, the Heckler & Koch XM8 was a lightweight assault rifle that aimed to replace the original M4 carbine in U.S. Army service. Based on Germany’s G36 rifle, the XM8’s futuristic appearance and extensive use of polymer made it popular in video games of the time. But the Army canceled the program and opted to stick with an improved M4A1 carbine. Now, the XM8 is back on the military’s books, as the carbine version of the M7, courtesy of SIG Sauer.Also Read: The infantry hates the XM7 rifle (and why the Army doesn’t care) Following its experimental adoption under the Next Generation Squad Weapon program, the SIG Sauer XM5 rifle was redesignated the XM7 to prevent confusion with the commercial Colt M5 carbine.Officially adopted as the M7, the new SIG rifle has faced criticism from soldiers, especially for its weight. If you actually fired an original XM8, it’s time for your prostate exam. (U.S. Army) Equipped with a suppressor and electronic fire control system, an unloaded M7 weighs over 13 pounds. For comparison, the M14, which was quickly replaced by the M16, weighed just over 9 pounds unloaded. At SHOT Show 2026, SIG Sauer displayed a carbine version of the M7.Unnamed at the time, the shorter, lighter M7 has received a National Stock Number (NSN 1005-01-737-3402) under the designation XM8. This makes the new carbine easy for testing units to procure. In addition to a tapered and shorter barrel, down from the M7’s 13.1 inches to 10.9 inches, the XM8 ditches the folding and telescoping stock for a fixed, telescoping stock like that of the M4. Unloaded and without accessories, the XM8 weighs 7.3 pounds. The carbine’s suppressor also shaves 1 inch and 0.15 pounds off of the M7’s can.With a shorter barrel but the same 6.8x51mm ammunition, the XM8 will have a decreased bullet velocity compared to the M7. However, the modularity of the MCX-SPEAR system on which the NGSW is based allows for relatively quick barrel and handguard changes at the unit armorer level. Interestingly, accuracy is reportedly better with the shorter XM8. The M7 measures 36 inches long with its suppressor. (U.S. Army) Developed under the M7 Product Improvement Effort, the XM8 aims to address issues experienced by soldiers with the M7. SIG Sauer reports that barrel life is the same as that of the longer M7. Troop evaluations will reveal if Capt. Braden Trent’s observations of unusually high barrel wear in the M7 persist in the XM8.At SHOT, SIG Sauer told TFB TV that the carbine version of the M7 would be available to the civilian market. However, calibers, pricing, and release date were not specified. So, not the XM8 some may have wanted (still waiting, H&K), but hopefully the XM8 that troops need. Don’t Miss the Best of We Are The Mighty • The most legit military watch is built for apocalyptic combat• Marines reject Army’s SIG M7 rifle, opting to keep H&K M27• Why the Army doesn’t need the Sig Sauer M7 rifle Weapons Weapons The XM8 is back, but not in the way you might remember it By Miguel Ortiz Firearms This classic carry pistol was used by gangsters, generals, SWAT, and spies By Miguel Ortiz Vietnam War 8 of the most terrifying Vietnam War booby traps By Blake Stilwell Weapons The US is using Iran’s own ‘one-way’ suicide drone against Iran By Blake Stilwell Weapons America’s ongoing quest to stop firing $4 million missiles at $30,000 drones By Adam Gramegna The post The XM8 is back, but not in the way you might remember it appeared first on We Are The Mighty.

Next week’s argument in Keathley v. Buddy Ayers Construction involves a technical question about bankruptcy procedure – the standards for overlooking the failure of a debtor in bankruptcy to mention one of its assets to the court. To give context, the debtor is Thomas Keathley, who with his spouse filed for bankruptcy in Arkansas in December 2019. The bankruptcy court approved a plan under Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code, obligating the Keathleys to repay their creditors out of future income; the plan promised payment of 100% of their debts, albeit without interest. Later, while the Keathleys were making payments on the plan, a truck driven by an employee of Buddy Ayers Construction struck Keathley’s car, injuring him seriously. Although a lay person might regard the accident as an unfortunate incident, bankruptcy law regards the accident as a benefit to Keathley’s creditors, because it gives him a claim against Buddy Ayers that could produce money for those creditors. As it happens, though Keathley told his bankruptcy lawyer about the accident, his lawyer did not disclose the accident to the bankruptcy court. Later, when Keathley sued Buddy Ayers in federal court in Mississippi to recover for the accident, the lower courts dismissed Keathley’s complaint under a doctrine of “judicial estoppel.” Because Keathley had a motive to conceal the accident from the bankruptcy court – the potential ability to keep a tort recovery to himself – the lower courts held that he was “estopped” (that is, barred) from pursuing the tort claim against Buddy Ayers, allowing Buddy Ayers to walk away scot-free. The justices are hearing this case because the lower courts have two distinct approaches to the doctrine of judicial estoppel. One group of courts – including the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, which issued the decision under review here – emphasizes the “potential benefit” of nondisclosure and applies the doctrine to bar pursuit of the claim whenever there is a “hypothetical motive” to conceal. Another group of courts applies a “totality of the circumstances” test that turns for the most part on whether the debtor intentionally concealed assets from the bankruptcy court. In a way, this is a case presenting what my mother would have called a “sob story.” Keathley has a sob story and his lawyer wants to sell it to the justices. That take on the case might make light of Keathley’s position, but his story is presented ably and well might appeal to some of the justices. Most obviously, there is nothing deceitful to a lay person about being in a car accident that is not your fault and not knowing that you need to run immediately to the bankruptcy court to disclose a newfound asset. Also, for Keathley’s part, he did tell his lawyer, and it is hard to blame Keathley personally for his lawyer’s failure to understand that a bankruptcy court would view Keathley’s car accident as a windfall for his creditors. More generally, as Keathley points out, there is something perverse about the application of judicial estoppel here, as it leaves the malefactor (Buddy Ayers) exempt from responsibility for the car accident and deprives Keathley’s creditors of the chance to get paid out of funds from Buddy Ayers. The other side of it, of course, is the attractiveness of clear rules. Buddy Ayers argues that judicial estoppel always has been judged by an objective standard, and that it would leave things in an unacceptably unpredictable state if courts must consider the “17-plus factors” that Buddy Ayers sees in Keathley’s proposed mode of analysis. Buddy Ayers repeatedly underscores the opportunity for abuse of gullible courts, characterizing Keathley’s position as allowing the debtor to avoid responsibility “by claiming a pure heart and making belated disclosure once caught.” It is pretty clear that there is no case sufficiently on point to tie the justices’ hands in any serious way, so the result here well may turn on how the story lands with the justices. My best guess is that some of them will think there is something a bit “off” about a purely equitable doctrine like judicial estoppel being applied as rigidly as Buddy Ayers suggests. Justice Neil Gorsuch often is the first to sense the plight of “everyman,” and I can see this as the kind of case that might draw him in. I’m looking forward to seeing what they think next week. The post Justices to consider rules pardoning omissions by bankrupt debtors appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

First look photos tease snippets of Marvel’s upcoming feature, SPIDER-MAN: BRAND NEW DAY. One photo shows Spider-Man saving a man...

Three men who alleged that actor Kevin Spacey sexually assaulted them have settled their civil claims before going to trial at the High Court in London, courts document show.