But how many "good starts" are we going to see?
The whole thing has turned into a hollow charade. The judge says Cat, the prosecutor says Dog, everyone jumps around for a while. But nothing changes and no actual penalties are ever handed out.
She isn't licensed as a medical doctor in any state and she "tak[es] magic mushrooms, consult[s] a “spiritual medium,” and participat[es] in “full moon ceremonies.”
It really sounds like she's a witch doctor or shaman rather than a science-based medical doctor.
So the surgeon general is a witch doctor? Only under the Trump Administration would it be possible to write that sentence and not have it be a joke or sarcasm.
If the objective is to increase Internet security with no regard to secondary/downstream ramifications, then wouldn't it make more sense to ban Microsoft Windows?
MS Windows has been responsible for more security issues than any other single factor pretty much since from the first day showed up on the Internet.
The original intent of the Vietnam war was to attempt to bottle up the Soviet Union and prevent the spread of their ideology/interest through South Asia. If the Viet Cong succeeded it could lead to the collapse of other democratic governments in that area.
Iraq was intended to prevent the development and use of "weapons of mass destruction".
Both of those are examples of stuff that started out with some semblance of good intentions. Neither worked out well, of course, but that part came later on. Sadly, Iraq ultimately ended up worse off than it was originally and Vietnam was just an overall fiasco with great losses of life.
Since nobody has a crystal ball, I still credit the USA with at least a modicum of good intentions in both cases.
Today, though, not so much.
I am not an American but all of my life it's been pretty much taken for granted by both me and everyone around me that the US is a benign force for good in the world.
Not that everything has always worked out as well as it might have, of course, but we've generally accepted that if the USA is doing (or not doing) something, then there's probably a good reason for it.
This applies to everything from drug approvals to, I suppose, declarations of war.
No more, though. I no longer believe that the USA has the best interests of the wider world (let alone Americans themselves) at heart when they act.
And this should be a real ignominy and embarassment for everyone involved.
I still don't see how Donald Trump was elected once, let alone for a second time.
Are Americans really that illiterate and unenlightened? On the available evidence, apparently so.
While a judge should be a "learned person" in the law, I get the impression that this is simply no longer the case.
The lawyers seem to be expected to spoon feed every bit of information to him and the idea of independent verification and research or even just general knowledge of the law as it applies to the case he's expected to rule on simply isn't there.
Which on its face means that these folks are simply unqualified to do the job they are supposed to be doing.
This whole sorry episode is a barking disgrace.
Everyone involved should be shamed like a mutt with its tail between its legs, caught with its head in the trash.
The whole thing is just a dogs dinner of incompetence.
"before the IRS can hand over a taxpayer’s home address to another agency, the requesting agency has to provide the name and address of the person they’re looking for"
If the system requires that you must provide the taxpayer's address to obtain the taxpayer's address, why are you doing this at all? You've already got the information.
"Edwards says he first tried to use Claude to scrape some quotes from the engineer’s website, but that was blocked by site code."
If he intends to use quotes from this fellow's website, why wouldn't he cut-and-paste the relevant sections instead of trying to use some long-way-around-the-bush tool like Claude to do it for him?
He'll have to read the quotes he's intending to use anyway to be sure that he understands what they say (because that's the point of writing about them).
The process is: Read the relevant articles/postings, highlight the relevant parts and past them into your article, properly attributed and clearly marked as quotations.
It seems like this fellow didn't actually do any of that.
If he's a writer, I'm a rhinoceros.
Definitely the gang who can't shoot straight.
Or who can't get their story straight.
https://www.politico.com/news/2026/03/05/pentagon-tells-anthropic-it-has-designated-the-company-a-supply-chain-risk-00814758
The Pentagon has officially designated Anthropic as a supply chain risk so nobody doing business with the federal government is allowed to use their services now.
They are breaking their own law by continuing to negotiate with this supply chain risk.
The Trump clown car continues to careen down the track with Cheeto at the wheel.
And there are still no actual penalties being levied.
This reminds me of the Robin Williams quote: "Stop, or I'll say stop again."
This might be considered progress, but it's minimal.
Actually you didn't say that.
You said it was crazy that he couldn't continue to perform his song after he sold the rights to it.
Do you also believe he should be able sell his house and move back in ten years later?
Not to defend the current state of copyright law (because it's indefensible) but if he sold/signed away his rights to that song then he's in the wrong here.
If he sold someone his house he wouldn't be able to show up ten years later and move back in either.
This leads me to question the safety of anyone flying anywhere in the USA.
If they have lasers set up to shoot flying objects down, and they have provably shot down stuff "by accident" in the past, who would want to be on a plane flying anywhere near one of these installations?
I very much doubt there will be a publicly available list of the laser sites, so the only safe option is probably to just avoid getting on any aircraft flying through, near or over the United States.
Aren't judges supposed to know the law? At least more about it than the average schnook on the street?
If the warrant application is submitted and a law applies to it, isn't the judge supposed to call it out as a problem then?
If it's up to the prosecution and the defense to spoon feed sufficient knowledge of the law to the judge, then what is the role of the judge? Is he's just there to assign points based on today's submissions?
I don't see why it's up to the lawyers to educate the judge since he's the one who is supposed to be making decisions based on the law. And since we expect that of him, he should have the education, the knowledge, and the resources to do it.
That wouldn't be helpful when your objective is to suck up to Trump and his flunkies in order to avoid "investigations".
It certainly has Pravda and KCBC (Korean Central Broadcasting Committee) overtones.
I don't think so.
Movies in theatres get billboards, they get big posters on the wall, they get lots of promotion and "see it now!"
A movie on Netflix is a postage stamp on your screen alongside dozens of other postage stamps, and it has exactly the same appeal as the ten or twenty year old movie that's listed right beside it.
Home video is where movies go to die, just one tiny part of that great pile of other movies.
Movies used to have have legs. They would run for months in theatres before coming out on video.
Today the new movies go from theatres to one more postage stamp on your netflix menu within weeks.
American Graffiti played for 54 weeks at the Colorado 4 in Denver and for 63 weeks at the Varscona in Edmonton.
Titanic...
Toy Story...
Jaws...
None of these movies would be the cultural phenomenon that they are if they had been rammed onto video within a few weeks.
The process is the punishment.
Regardless of the actual merits of any of these vindictive prosecutions (persecutions?) there's a substantial monetary cost, plus time, reputation and general stress and worry, even when they are thrown out of court and the person being attacked is vindicated in the end.
Plus there are always people who assume that anyone charged with something must be guilty, regardless of the facts that come out later.
The headline "Joe Schmoe charged" is always in a larger font than "Schmoe acquitted."
But how many "good starts" are we going to see? The whole thing has turned into a hollow charade. The judge says Cat, the prosecutor says Dog, everyone jumps around for a while. But nothing changes and no actual penalties are ever handed out.
Witch doctor?
She isn't licensed as a medical doctor in any state and she "tak[es] magic mushrooms, consult[s] a “spiritual medium,” and participat[es] in “full moon ceremonies.” It really sounds like she's a witch doctor or shaman rather than a science-based medical doctor. So the surgeon general is a witch doctor? Only under the Trump Administration would it be possible to write that sentence and not have it be a joke or sarcasm.
Ban MS Windows instead?
If the objective is to increase Internet security with no regard to secondary/downstream ramifications, then wouldn't it make more sense to ban Microsoft Windows? MS Windows has been responsible for more security issues than any other single factor pretty much since from the first day showed up on the Internet.
The original intent of the Vietnam war was to attempt to bottle up the Soviet Union and prevent the spread of their ideology/interest through South Asia. If the Viet Cong succeeded it could lead to the collapse of other democratic governments in that area. Iraq was intended to prevent the development and use of "weapons of mass destruction". Both of those are examples of stuff that started out with some semblance of good intentions. Neither worked out well, of course, but that part came later on. Sadly, Iraq ultimately ended up worse off than it was originally and Vietnam was just an overall fiasco with great losses of life. Since nobody has a crystal ball, I still credit the USA with at least a modicum of good intentions in both cases. Today, though, not so much.
I never thought I would be in this position
I am not an American but all of my life it's been pretty much taken for granted by both me and everyone around me that the US is a benign force for good in the world. Not that everything has always worked out as well as it might have, of course, but we've generally accepted that if the USA is doing (or not doing) something, then there's probably a good reason for it. This applies to everything from drug approvals to, I suppose, declarations of war. No more, though. I no longer believe that the USA has the best interests of the wider world (let alone Americans themselves) at heart when they act. And this should be a real ignominy and embarassment for everyone involved. I still don't see how Donald Trump was elected once, let alone for a second time. Are Americans really that illiterate and unenlightened? On the available evidence, apparently so.
While a judge should be a "learned person" in the law, I get the impression that this is simply no longer the case. The lawyers seem to be expected to spoon feed every bit of information to him and the idea of independent verification and research or even just general knowledge of the law as it applies to the case he's expected to rule on simply isn't there. Which on its face means that these folks are simply unqualified to do the job they are supposed to be doing.
A doggone mess
This whole sorry episode is a barking disgrace. Everyone involved should be shamed like a mutt with its tail between its legs, caught with its head in the trash. The whole thing is just a dogs dinner of incompetence.
You need the address to get the address?
"before the IRS can hand over a taxpayer’s home address to another agency, the requesting agency has to provide the name and address of the person they’re looking for" If the system requires that you must provide the taxpayer's address to obtain the taxpayer's address, why are you doing this at all? You've already got the information.
Maybe he needs to learn to read before trying to write?
"Edwards says he first tried to use Claude to scrape some quotes from the engineer’s website, but that was blocked by site code." If he intends to use quotes from this fellow's website, why wouldn't he cut-and-paste the relevant sections instead of trying to use some long-way-around-the-bush tool like Claude to do it for him? He'll have to read the quotes he's intending to use anyway to be sure that he understands what they say (because that's the point of writing about them). The process is: Read the relevant articles/postings, highlight the relevant parts and past them into your article, properly attributed and clearly marked as quotations. It seems like this fellow didn't actually do any of that. If he's a writer, I'm a rhinoceros.
Negotiating a deal with the supply chain risk
Definitely the gang who can't shoot straight. Or who can't get their story straight. https://www.politico.com/news/2026/03/05/pentagon-tells-anthropic-it-has-designated-the-company-a-supply-chain-risk-00814758 The Pentagon has officially designated Anthropic as a supply chain risk so nobody doing business with the federal government is allowed to use their services now. They are breaking their own law by continuing to negotiate with this supply chain risk. The Trump clown car continues to careen down the track with Cheeto at the wheel.
And still no actual penalties
And there are still no actual penalties being levied. This reminds me of the Robin Williams quote: "Stop, or I'll say stop again." This might be considered progress, but it's minimal.
Actually you didn't say that. You said it was crazy that he couldn't continue to perform his song after he sold the rights to it. Do you also believe he should be able sell his house and move back in ten years later?
Not to defend the current state of copyright law (because it's indefensible) but if he sold/signed away his rights to that song then he's in the wrong here. If he sold someone his house he wouldn't be able to show up ten years later and move back in either.
None of these folks are in jail yet and nobody has paid a fine. So no actual consequences yet.
I question the safety of flying in the USA
This leads me to question the safety of anyone flying anywhere in the USA. If they have lasers set up to shoot flying objects down, and they have provably shot down stuff "by accident" in the past, who would want to be on a plane flying anywhere near one of these installations? I very much doubt there will be a publicly available list of the laser sites, so the only safe option is probably to just avoid getting on any aircraft flying through, near or over the United States.
Incompetent judge?
Aren't judges supposed to know the law? At least more about it than the average schnook on the street? If the warrant application is submitted and a law applies to it, isn't the judge supposed to call it out as a problem then? If it's up to the prosecution and the defense to spoon feed sufficient knowledge of the law to the judge, then what is the role of the judge? Is he's just there to assign points based on today's submissions? I don't see why it's up to the lawyers to educate the judge since he's the one who is supposed to be making decisions based on the law. And since we expect that of him, he should have the education, the knowledge, and the resources to do it.
That wouldn't be helpful when your objective is to suck up to Trump and his flunkies in order to avoid "investigations". It certainly has Pravda and KCBC (Korean Central Broadcasting Committee) overtones.
I don't think so. Movies in theatres get billboards, they get big posters on the wall, they get lots of promotion and "see it now!" A movie on Netflix is a postage stamp on your screen alongside dozens of other postage stamps, and it has exactly the same appeal as the ten or twenty year old movie that's listed right beside it. Home video is where movies go to die, just one tiny part of that great pile of other movies.
Movies used to have "legs"
Movies used to have have legs. They would run for months in theatres before coming out on video. Today the new movies go from theatres to one more postage stamp on your netflix menu within weeks. American Graffiti played for 54 weeks at the Colorado 4 in Denver and for 63 weeks at the Varscona in Edmonton. Titanic... Toy Story... Jaws... None of these movies would be the cultural phenomenon that they are if they had been rammed onto video within a few weeks.
The process is the punishment
The process is the punishment. Regardless of the actual merits of any of these vindictive prosecutions (persecutions?) there's a substantial monetary cost, plus time, reputation and general stress and worry, even when they are thrown out of court and the person being attacked is vindicated in the end. Plus there are always people who assume that anyone charged with something must be guilty, regardless of the facts that come out later. The headline "Joe Schmoe charged" is always in a larger font than "Schmoe acquitted."