A search for prior art for a totally absurd patent that is being used to threaten podcasters.

It describes using a web site (or anything somewhat similar) for an activity comparable to publishing a magazine. No sensible person would consider this an invention. The fact that one needs to look for prior art to invalidate this nonsense demonstrates that the US Patent Office still applies ridiculous standards. (And not only in the computing field.)

However, even a "well run" patent system would still be harmful in the computing field, because patents cause grid-lock in any field which involves combining many ideas in one work or product.

To protect against patents by invalidating those that can be invalidated is like trying to protect yourself from malaria by swatting mosquitoes. By all means do swat them, but we need to go beyond that. The US can protect software from patents by exempting them specifically.

Cruel UK policies will force migrant and trafficked children onto the street or into the hands of anyone that wants to take advantage of them.

The same government advocates censorship to "protect children", but clearly it doesn't really care about children. Sometimes it makes children suffer. Sometimes it cites children as an excuse to persecute someone else. As long as someone is demonized and made to suffer, right-wing politicians are happy.

When a government's only tool is a hammer, it begins seeing people as nails.

Most Americans say they want high taxes on the rich, to help out everyone else.

Thus, most of our legislators are shown to be working for the rich, not for us.

US drone attacks in Pakistan boost support for the Taliban and make people regard the government of Pakistan as a tool of foreigners.

In the end, the US does not gain from this. But US politicians gain, because they can say they are "tough on 'terrorists'".

Thugs set off the Stockholm riots by killing a man and then lying about the circumstances.