Pentagon Aims To Buy Up Book 347
jamie writes "Operation Dark Heart, a book about the adventures and frustrations of an Army officer who served in Afghanistan, has ruffled some feathers at the Pentagon. From the article: 'The Defense Department is attempting to buy the entire first printing — 10,000 copies — of a memoir by a controversial former Defense Intelligence Agency officer so that the book can be destroyed, according to military and other sources."
Founding Fathers do facepalm (Score:4, Insightful)
I think our government should just abolish the first amendment. They clearly don't believe in it. This just makes me so sick. Where is wikileaks when you need them?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This government, I would not call it "ours", has not believed in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights since at least the late 60's. The peak of this country was some time in the early 80's. The downward spiral has begun.
Re:Founding Fathers do facepalm (Score:5, Interesting)
Your history is a little too molested for my taste. the real destruction of the US constitution started during the civil war time and really became institutionalized during FDR. You are at minimum 100 years off and generalship at least 30 years off the most noticeable disregard of it.
FDR said at a speech that the government shouldn't be involved welfare or social issues two years before he was elected president. He then did did an about face and trampled all over it. In 1930 FDR said:
This s[eech was given considering the Volstead Act. He states that he knows they need a constitutional amendment in order to act on matters of the conduct of public utilities, of banks, of insurance, of business, of agriculture, of education, of social welfare and of a dozen other important features. Yet he totally ignores that two year later as president, creates a standoff with the supreme court in which they ended up backing down and bending the interstate commerce clause in order to save face, and this was the biggest disregard for the constitution by the government in recent times and it's still being conducted to this day. Why you just now think it's happening is a mystery to me. but it still happening is not surprising at all seeing how when you allow one infraction, others will follow.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Its one of those things online, if someone doesnt agree with you, you are a *TROLL* man, a freaking *TROLL*!!!!1!!!1!
I get it, you got modded down for speaking ill of Rand, yet others can get "+5 insightful" mods from similar comments!
You have it exactly right "...they want the freedom to be the ones in charge of everything."
Re:Founding Fathers do facepalm (Score:4, Informative)
The downward spiral began with Lincoln violating the Constitution and starting a war to prevent people from peacefully leaving the US. I have an old Lit. book from college with personal letters in it written by Lincoln - there's one where he writes to the Confederate leaders and in very plain terms says that he's ok with letting them keep slaves as long as they rejoined the US and acknowledged his supreme power - if they refused to bow before him, he would destroy them. Then once FDR came to power and violated just about every last inch of the Constitution.........but I just expanded a comment below and saw that he goes into FDR, so I'll stop there.
Re:Founding Fathers do facepalm (Score:5, Insightful)
The first amendment is irrelevant. From TFA, the military's attempting to keep hidden the real names of intelligence officers involved with some actions. Any criticism of the military actions is still likely in the second edition, which is already approved. The first amendment does not grant the right to endanger others by means of speech. It grants the right to hold and express any opinions you want, and Congress will not render such expression illegal.
Re:Founding Fathers do facepalm (Score:5, Informative)
Something I think many forget, or never know is that part of a security clearance is a non-disclosure agreement. You agree not to disclose classified material. It is as binding as any other NDA, and in fact has criminal penalties behind it. Now that doesn't mean you can never talk about anything. Things get declassified, after long enough passes this tends to happen by default (50 years usually).
However it does mean that you have to be careful what you disclose. In general, the government works with people in this regard. You want to write a book about something that is legal for you to disclose, they'll review it to make sure nothing goes in there that shouldn't. In this case, it sounds like the events can be talked about, but not the names. Makes sense.
What happened here is that it got missed somehow. They noticed they missed it, but to until after the printing run was done. So "mea cupla," they ask the author to change it, and teh publisher to do another run. However the first run is still done, the money spent. So they buy it up. Now everyone is happy.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
For that, you'll have to look at the Espionage Act, and its amendments in the Sedition act. In summary, it's illegal to aid groups the American government has declared to be enemies.
I'm afraid I don't remember the details involved (coincidence, I swear), but I seem to remember a biographical book a few years ago causing quite a ruckus, as it indicated that an elected official (in California, I think) had a relationship with a prostitute. It turned out to be false, but the guy's career was ruined. Similar st
I'm guessing "PR Stunt", actually (Score:2)
Actually the idea of some entity trying to buy every single copy of a book to keep it secret, strikes me of more like a PR stunt than something feasible.
If you want to actually bury something, you buy the _rights_ to it. Then you get copyright extended until kingdom come like Disney. Copyright is just as misused for preventing something from being seen as it is used as originally intended.
Trying to just buy the copies off the market is purely pointless if someone else has the copyright, as basically nothing
Re:Founding Fathers do facepalm (Score:5, Informative)
I think our government should just abolish the first amendment. They clearly don't believe in it. This just makes me so sick. Where is wikileaks when you need them?
The author is a vet and had the military review the book. After publishing someone thought something had erroneously been left in. The author and publisher are cooperating, a new version is already being printed without the part in question. Buying the first printing of books may be the simplest way to deal with them. The military reviewers goofed not the publisher so the publisher should not suffer any loss. Given that the author and publisher do not want to reveal anything sensitive and are cooperating with the government I don't see censorship. Censorship is when someone wants to publish and is prohibited, not when someones says is all this ok with you ... no ... ok lets edit.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Founding Fathers do facepalm (Score:4, Insightful)
Do you want someone killed because someone else screwed up in a cooperative deal that was supposed to prevent this? No.
Not all censorship is created equal.
We don't publish the names of children who are victims of sexual abuse.
Is that censorship? Yes. Is it wrong? No.
We don't publish the names of rape victims.
Is that censorship? Yes. Is it wrong? No.
We don't publish the names of stalking victims.
Is that censorship? Yes. Is it wrong? No.
We don't publish your credit card info all over the net (hopefully)
Is that censorship? Yes. Is it wrong? No.
We may disagree on the standard for reasonableness, but some things really don't need to be "out there".
We practice censorship all the time. ..."
I won't watch "Silence of the Lambs" because I walked in on the scene where some guy is hunched over a sewing machine.
"What's he doing?"
"Making a woman suit."
"A what?"
"He killed these women, skinned them, and now he's
"Bye!"
For me, that's not entertainment. For someone else, it is. And after hopping over to Wikipedia and reading the plot summary, I don't think I missed anything.
Adults can decide to watch it, but I think we'd agree that children below a certain age (as determined by their parents) shouldn't watch stuff like that, without triggering the "think of the children" or "censorship" alarms.
Wikileaks? (Score:2)
Where have I heard this before? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
They sent out their minions to buy up Hubbard books in order to artificially push them into the charts.
Maybe the Pentagon is trying something similar here? ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, and a Florida pastor was recently trying to make a start in doing the same to the Koran.
Kindle Version (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Here's what he should do (Score:2)
He should have a copy transcribed, and release it in a torrent.
Re: (Score:2)
"He should have a copy transcribed, and release it in a torrent."
Government employees, military and civilian, are subject to NDA regarding classified information. Naming names is desirable to those who want to expose everyone involved in classified ops, but not necessarily required for the public to be entertained.
Blurb totally misleading. (Score:5, Informative)
The blurb is intentionally misleading here. The govt gave the OK for the book but then upon a later review they were worried about some names released and a 2nd printing has already been agreed upon by both parties. They are just deciding what to do with 10k books that were already printed. Obviously the publisher spent money to already print them so they aren't going to just destroy them.
Re:Blurb totally misleading. (Score:5, Insightful)
mod parent up, case dismissed, nothing to see here, move along...
misleading blurbs FTL.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Blurb totally misleading. (Score:4, Insightful)
Tell you what - I'm okay with MY tax money compensating someone for the DoD's screw-up, so why don't you cover universal health care for me, and I'll pay for the books?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No kidding, let's not become the Fox News of the internet.
Too late.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Blurb totally misleading. (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't US officers have to agree to let the military vet any books about their experiences if they want the job?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"agreed upon by both parties"
Maybe you missed that bit. It's not government forcing anything. The publisher agreed to it. The government made a reasonable request and was willing to compensate the publisher for their trouble, and everything is fine. The 2nd version will be printed and anyone can buy it.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The publisher probably can't be prosecuted (which is one reason they're being paid off instead, probably), but ex-intelligence officials do need permission to publish about their work. When accepting employment, they sign a contract agreeing to run any future publications about their work by the Publication Review Board for prepublication clearance.
The Supreme Court upheld that arrangement in 1980 in Snepp v. US [google.com], in a short 6-3 per curiam opinion. It's a strange opinion, because this sort of thing usually
Re: (Score:2)
Comes with being in the military. I believe as an officer you have to pretty much sign a statement saying you give the military approval of anything you write.
You say the guy is no longer on active duty? Fine, but if he was an officer he probably is still an officer, just not active duty. You have to go through a lot to actually resign your commission.
If the guy was just a grunt this wouldn't apply.
Re:Blurb totally misleading. (Score:5, Informative)
The publisher is in the clear, but if classified info is in there the author can go straight off to prison. The issue here is that the DoD erroneously okayed the first edition on that issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Crap i had a rant all prepared and you go and take the fun out of it....
Seriously this type of reporting is akin to all those emails I get from my Tea-Partier Mother-in-Law and I have to take time to let her know she is spreading lies and misinformation in order to incite and such is harmful to a democratic system of government.
We finally have the missing step (Score:5, Funny)
1. write a book about a subject
2. the subject must be something that someone or some organization wants to cover up
3. the said someone or organization buys all your copies in order to cover up the subject
4. profit!
Don't Burn the Quran (Score:2)
Bestseller (Score:2)
So the government is going to buy all prints straight from the press?
How about a second print?
Surely this will become the most popular book of all times, as measured in sales.
Re: (Score:2)
So the government is going to buy all prints straight from the press?
How about a second print?
Surely this will become the most popular book of all times, as measured in sales.
Except the second edition has been edited to remove the information that the DoD objects to in the first edition. They're just trying to clean up after a mistake (the book was cleared for release, but now they're claiming it wasn't cleared by the "proper" authorities).
Won't the publisher just print more? (Score:2)
Yea!!! (Score:2)
Yea!!! Modern day book burning!!!!
We American's have finally come full circle now. Next week, burning a witch at the stake (Sponsored by Kingford)
sigh...
If there was an eBook... (Score:2, Insightful)
Book burning at taxpayer expense! (Score:2)
The thump heard round the world. (Score:2)
That was Assange's palm smacking his rather large forehead!
RTFA - There will be a 2nd printing (Score:5, Informative)
For all the people say "LOL they'll just print more" or "OMG censorship is bad!" here are the relevant parts of the story:
"[T]he Defense Intelligence Agency objected to the use of the names of American intelligence officers, among other issues." and "A new print run, without the disputed passages, is being prepared by the publisher."
This compromise is reasonable and legal. We still get the story but the intelligence officers names won't be published.
And the government aren't begin dicks about it (Score:3, Insightful)
The issue is, of course, that the publisher paid to have a first run done. Would rather suck if they couldn't sell any of those. It would be a big sunk cost. Never mind if the government would even have the authority to tell them not to sell it, it would be a really dick move, one that would hurt the publisher. So the government instead said "We'll just buy up the entire production run. You agree to sell them to nobody else, we take all of them and destroy them, you go ahead with the 2nd edition with our bl
I didn't RTFA because it's behind a login (Score:3, Informative)
"Thank you for giving us a green light to print money, Pentagon." --The Publishers
Wow! (Score:3, Insightful)
The first printing was so popular, we're going to crank out another 100K pronto!
....profit! (Score:3, Insightful)
2. Publish
3. Let Pentagon buy up entire printing
4. Keep making more printings for them to buy
5. PROFIT!!!
Correct me if I'm wrong, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
...if the entire first printing sells out almost immediately (Regardless of the reason), doesn't that pretty much ensure it will get another printing?
Re:Is this really censorship? (Score:5, Insightful)
Your tax dollars at work...
Re:Is this really censorship? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Is this really censorship? (Score:5, Insightful)
But when the first printing sells out, the publisher is only going to print more. Clearly this is a scam to funnel taxpayer money into the pockets of this "former officer", paying a hefty fee to the publisher to launder the dough.
Re:Is this really censorship? (Score:4, Insightful)
...Clearly this is a scam to funnel taxpayer money into the pockets of this "former officer", paying a hefty fee to the publisher to launder the dough.
How and where, exactly, is this made "clear"?
Oh. You were joking? Silly me for missing the sarcasm. In that case, it's not the least bit funny. This action by our nation's military is deeply troubling. No matter how you figure who is writing the check, that the military is attempting to suppress information that the public has a right to see is frightening in it's implications.
Re:Is this really censorship? (Score:5, Interesting)
Does the public have the right to all the information? Sure, in time. There are procedures under the Freedom of Information Act to get it later on, like when revealing it will cause minimal damage (and probably just PR damage). Demanding to know it right now just because of curiosity? Would you like identifying information to be posted on 4chan? There are many "reasonable and normal" people out there who would react in the same way as them.
Re:Is this really censorship? (Score:5, Interesting)
Our current state secrets regime is based on a Supreme Court case, United States v. Reynolds, which protected Boeing from revealing information regarding the deaths of three engineers in a plane crash because it would endanger national security. From the blurb for Claim of Privilege [powells.com]:
In other words, the very case that gave us the state secrets BS that Obama is latching on to harder than Bush II, was based on a COVERUP of NEGLIGENCE, not for any actual national security reasons. Boeing and the Air Force killed these smart geeks, and then LIED to protect their ass. That's what the state secrets doctrine is about -- it isn't about protecting anyone but the fuckwads ruining our country. Wake up already.
You can also listen to the TAL report [thisamericanlife.org], it is the second story.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Indeed, the 'state secret' privilege is an entire fraud, as is 95% of the stuff we have classified.
The only thing the government should be able to keep secret are future or active military operations, still-living intelligent assets, and some stuff like military blueprints and things.
There is no military operation older than a month in the past that should be kept secret. What, are our enemies using carrier snails? I think they've pretty much figured out what happened. All reports generated should be publ
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
IMO A big part of the problem (Score:3, Interesting)
In my opinion, a big part of problem with the war on drugs (and abstinence only education as well) is that the people who support the lies become invested in them... Financially to be sure, but intellectually and emotionally more so.
For some, it's cognitive dissonance and for other's it's reputation.For the emotional, there's such a belief in the lies told about drug use, and they are so heavily invested in those beliefs that it's impossible for them to truly consider alternatives. For the more rational su
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But, how many stupids are there in the world? How many people exist that are too immature and not evolved enough to have the sense not to swallow the entire content? Who pays to clean up that mess?
The consumers can pay for it, by way of a tax on the drugs, like they already do for tobacco and alcohol.
You are honestly suggesting we legalize all drugs? No controls at all?
I'm not him, but I think that's the right idea. The problems caused by prohibition far outweigh the problems caused by the drugs themselves.
What about the medical profession, prescriptions exist for good reason, far more than just limiting supply to drug users.
Such as?
I'm having a hard time thinking of a good reason to require prescriptions for anything except antibiotics (since improper use can create resistant strains).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The "good reason" was part of the AMA's campaign to eliminate competition during the early 1900's.
This long effort eliminated midwife home birthing in many states, prescriptions by pharmacists everywhere, and any other potential competition. Nothing like a monopoly to insure income.
Medicine in a business like any other and their lobbyists in the AMA delivered.
All under the guise o
Re: (Score:2)
But when the first printing sells out, the publisher is only going to print more. Clearly this is a scam to funnel taxpayer money into the pockets of this "former officer", paying a hefty fee to the publisher to launder the dough.
I, uh ... what?
Re:Is this really censorship? (Score:5, Informative)
But when the first printing sells out, the publisher is only going to print more.
Did you even RTFA? Let me sum up since you seem to be too lazy:
The first run was printed after the author received permission from the Army Reserve. The Pentagon got wind of it after the first printing and discovered that there was a lot of material that shouldn't have been printed in the first place. The publisher and author then worked with the Pentagon to redact the questionable material, but that left the publisher with 10000 books sitting in a warehouse that can't be sold.
Since the Army Reserve is really the unit that screwed up in this case by not sending the manuscript up the chain for higher level review, the responsibility for paying for all those books rests with the DoD in general. It's actually the honourable thing to do in this case - along with firing whoever signed off on it in the Reserve component.
Re:Is this really censorship? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's actually the honourable thing to do in this case - along with firing whoever signed off on it in the Reserve component.
Once you accept that "a lot of material that shouldn't have been printed in the first place" indeed shouldn't have been printed, sure.
However, it's still censorship. The only question is whether we approve of it.
Re:Is this really censorship? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Is this really censorship? (Score:5, Informative)
It was derided and criticized by the West all along, and many books that were "unpublishable" in the USSR in their "unabridged" format were moved to the West and printed there.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If you get a security clearance, the documents you sign stipulate that anything you want to publish is subject to review before it can be released to the public.
And if you had a "writer" clearance in the SU - a membership to the Writers' Union (a professional organization of writers there) - you'd sign documents that stipulated your work is subject to editorial review before it could be released to the public. It was considerably more difficult to get a book out "officially" without such membership.
You can see how similar is this in form to what the Pentagon is doing. One difference is that publication money was never an issue, as the state was paying all the bills
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Wait, you mean that asking an author to not print something, getting that author's agreement, and then paying for the printing cost of books that had the material the author agreed to remove is censorship?"
(the music from The Godfather sounds)
I'll make him an offer he can't refuse.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, the only one left is here [google.com], and that's not in international waters.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"I think at the point that they are using any resources (yours or their own) to make some determination as to what you can/cannot read. That is censorship."
So is security classification. Perhaps we should not have any such, and trust everyone with everything. Surely the world will embrace our example and instantly do likewise.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The government does not have their 'own' resources. The government deciding to do a book burning is basically censorship very similar to the church buying up bibles in the Middle Ages to burn them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Neither are government employees. You've confused 'should be' with 'is'.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
They're buying the damned book themselves, paying cash for it. It's not really censorship if they, instead of banning it, go through entirely legal channels to simply purchase every copy of it, is it?
It is when they are requiring that any additional print runs be redacted, which is the case here.
it's part of the deal for ex-spooks (Score:5, Informative)
The government cannot censor material before it is printed by regular people. But if you worked for the government and write about intelligence you learned while there, then the government can review it and "suggest" redactions before it is printed.
That's what happened here, it's just they printed 10,000 copies that were insufficiently redacted, so those will be destroyed, the company compensated and then more copies with the proper redactions printed. As to the jokers making comments about digital copies, those would be destroyed and no one compensated, because the "buying up books" here isn't to get them off the market, they won't be going to market anyway. It's just to compensate for expenses of printing books they cannot now put on shelves as-is.
This is censorship, because it is the government restricting speech. But is is a special case of info from a government employee, and that is allowed under the law, whether you agree with it or not. It has been this way for some time, I used to have a paperback from the early 70s that advertised the government went to court to stop its publication because the author worked for the CIA before. That book was eventually published with some redactions as this one will too.
YOUR tax dollars is paying for it (Score:2)
AND it's paying for your enormous deficit, which is likely to bankrupt US pretty soon..
Ok, you've got two unwinnable wars, then what?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Hey! We're down to one unwinnable war, and one unwinnable non-combat presence...
Re:YOUR tax dollars is paying for it (Score:5, Interesting)
AND it's paying for your enormous deficit, which is likely to bankrupt US pretty soon..
Ok, you've got two unwinnable wars, then what?
The US went bankrupt many years ago. Why do you think all the gold was confiscated back in 1933
http://www.the-privateer.com/1933-gold-confiscation.html [the-privateer.com]
and Nixon took the USD completely off the gold standard?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_Shock [wikipedia.org]
You only resort to these extreme measures if you have a negative ROI. If you have sustained negative ROI, that's actually worse than actual bankruptcy, which is an admission that you failed and promise to restructure. Nope, the rampant spending continues, and the fiat money flows. The broken system becomes even more broken, as fiscal fantasy becomes even more out of line with fiscal reality.
That party cannot continue forever, I don't think.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
whoa, whoa, whoa! so i was involuntarily entered into a contract whereby "the nation" gains wealth from the sweat of my brow, because they shoved some paperwork under my mom's nose when i was born and told her to sign it? that seems a little shady, wouldn't you say?
also, it seems to me like gold isn't so worthless after all. as a matter of fact, it's been so stable over time that many investors maintain it as a hedge in case fiat currencies fail.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I know you're trolling but I'll bite.
I'm not trolling, actually, but that's besides the point.
The US is no longer on the Gold standard because Gold is worthless.
Worthless? Really? Can I have your gold then? I watch the financial markets nearly every day and gold is anything but worthless.
What is valuable is debt aka IOUs or promissory notes aka US Dollars otherwise known as Government issued Reserve Notes. Debt is backed by labor or goods and services which have real intrinsic value.
Ah, see, you are proving my point already, but let's continue.
Gold is only useful in niche electronic components and fashion jewelry.
FYI Reserve Notes are backed by Birth Certificates which have an economic value of ~$750000 - $1000000 for the lifetime of the individual, which is how much that Citizen is expected to contribute to the national economy in their lifetime in labor, services, intellectual property, etc.
So us human citizens are being used as collateral for the debt! Ah, therein lies the rub! Unless you have infinite growth, this model fails. The planet is only so big, and there are only so many resources, places to live, farmland, etc. Population growth cannot con
Re: (Score:2)
It is most certainly censorship. It's also great publicity! I hadn't even heard of the book before. Now I'm somewhat interested to at least find out more. Surely there has to be something interesting within its pages to warrant this kind of discussion. ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
From wikipedia:
"Censorship is the suppression of speech or other communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient to the general body of people as determined by a government, media outlet, or other controlling body."
This clearly qualifies as censorship. It doesn't matter how the suppression of information is achieved, as long as information is being suppressed intentionally because of its content, it is censorship.
And, regardless of how you define this (censorship or
Re: (Score:2)
They're buying the damned book themselves, paying cash for it. It's not really censorship if they, instead of banning it, go through entirely legal channels to simply purchase every copy of it, is it?
Grey area?
Grey, trending towards black. If a government takes steps to prevent me from reading certain material, that's censorship. Now, in certain cases that may be justified, but the way they're going about this says it probably isn't.
... no big deal. The government buys plenty of books. In this case, they want to have a government-sanctioned book burning and that's just wrong (no, I don't care if they're actually
If the Pentagon purchased those books for training purposes, say, or to use as reference materials
Re: (Score:2)
It's unfair competition for the regular joe who might be interested.
You can't really compete with a federal budget, especially one as large as that of the DoD.
Re:Print More (Score:5, Informative)
I realize you're just posting to spam your link, however if you look at the article it answers your question.
It was initially cleared for printing by the military. A different military organization later took a look at the book and had some objections. The author appears to have edited newer editions of his book to comply with what the military wanted (changing names I think) however the first 10,000 books were already printed.
The military now wants to buy the first edition out so that people will only be able to buy the newer, revised editions.
Re: (Score:2)
I bet his spam link is full of virus-infected crap, too. "Hey, it's 50 CODECs into a single installation package, what can go wrong?"
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Also, there's already a perfectly working package that does that.
http://www.cccp-project.net/ [cccp-project.net]
Re: (Score:2)
This way, once both editions are OCR'd, a simple DIFF will tell us what the government considers to be critical data. The bad guys (if there are any who care about this and don't already know it) don't even have to read the whole thing now.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I thought the trick was to simply smear them with alegations about sexual crimes these days.
Re: (Score:2)
Why not just kill him. It's vastly cheaper. Hasn't stopped the govt in the past - why stop now?
Kill him now and you make him a martyr. Then everyone would be even more interested in what he wrote.
Re: (Score:2)
There's no need, 10 000 copies is already over 9000!
Re: (Score:2)
Correction: ...they will do with _your_ money.
Re: (Score:2)
You have too much faith in the typical /. reader. I did rtfa and you're 100% correct. This is a non-issue.
Re:Ignorance: America's biggest gift to itself. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sorry, before I can take your post seriously, I require full disclosure, in the form of all of your personal information, Anonymous Coward.
Please submit it for open discussion, and then we can continue talking about how the only way to discuss anything is with all information being freely available to the public.
I mean, fair is fair, right?