Kim Dotcom Calls Hillary Clinton an "Adversary" of Internet Freedom 276
An anonymous reader writes: CNET reports that Kim Dotcom views Hillary Clinton as "an enemy of online freedom." Hilary's candidacy came up when Kim was asked about a tweet he made in which he called himself "Hillary's worse nightmare in 2016." He says now that Wikileaks founder Julian Assange would probably be a bigger headache for Clinton. "I'm aware of some of the things that are going to be roadblocks for her," he added. Dotcom said he hoped to expand the influence of the Internet Party and provide some transparency. Brietbart adds that a conflict between Assange and Clinton may have personal motivations, but it also seems inevitable. Hillary is obsessive about maintaining control of information. She created a personal server in her home to handle her emails as Secretary of State and then deleted all the contents after self-selecting the emails she believed were work-related. Assange is famous for parceling out secret information."
I call bullshit ... (Score:2)
... because Assange never did a goddam thing about leaking shit.
He was the spokesperson for Wikileaks.
Kim Dotcom doesn't like Hillary? (Score:2)
Take it as an advantage. No, if he really wanted to hurt Hillary, we would campaign for her
Yawn. (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not exactly excited about Hillary, but Kim Dotcom isn't where I usually turn for information about politics.
Sounds like he just misses being in the headlines.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not exactly excited about Hillary,....
For some reason that comes across sort of like: "I can quit smoking anytime I want, .... I've done it a thousand times."
Have the Democrats nobody better to offer? Seriously?
When Nixon did that... (Score:5, Insightful)
When Nixon did that, he was impeached.
Nowadays you're seriously considering electing someone who did the same damned thing Nixon did?
WTF is wrong with you Americans, anyhow?
Re: (Score:2)
As a US citizen, where should I begin?
Re: (Score:2)
OK, was hoping someone would point this out before this but:
Nixon resigned, he wasn't impeached.
Re: (Score:2)
When Nixon did that, he was impeached.
No, no, no.
Nixon wasn't impeached (articles of impeachment were written up, but weren't passed before Nixon resigned)
Nixon's crimes was far worse than just the coverup and there was plenty of other evidence of the crimes that he either ordered or was involved in. So far the only crimes that Hillary is accused of is Campaigning While Democrat(ic), which I'm sure some would consider a crime, but isn't (yet). You might be referring to some vague hand waving about Benghazi, but multiple investigations have re
Re: (Score:3)
The Clintons have been engaging in criminal activity for at least 35 years. Look at the Whitewater scandal. Both of them are corrupt to the core, and Hillary has the additional bonus of being a nasty person.
The Obama administration is monstrously dishonest; no federal investigation during his administration can be relied on.
Re: (Score:2)
Nixon was derailed in just a few years. Meanwhile Hillary has gotten away with this for 35 years (by your count). After the hundreds of millions of dollars spent, they haven't found one. single. thing. that she's been convicted of.
Re: (Score:2)
WTF is wrong with you Americans, anyhow?
Hillary et al tell us we deserve more bennies and the "rich" need to pay their "fair share"... and the rest is so much noise from the `vast right wing conspiracy' that goes in one ear and out the other. As long you can stand there and tell people they deserve things they know they don't you can do anything you want. All else is forgiven.
Re: (Score:2)
She'll tell then she's fighting for them. They always say "I'm fighting for you!"
No one ever points out who they're fighting against: your fellow Americans.
And no one ever points out what they're fighting over: the desire to spend money other people earned.
Re: (Score:2)
About 30-40% of people have to vote for Hillary because they're partisan Democrats and Hillary's opponents for the Democrat nomination are very weak. There's almost zero chance they'd vote for the Republican instead of Hillary.
For black folks, 90+% will vote Democrat. They'll never vote a different way, so their support can be completely written off by one side and completely taken for granted by the other.
On the Republican side, there are a whole bunch of candidates and many of them are highly qualified,
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, erasing records was bad too, Clinton deserves blame for that one. If she's elected, she'll be a negative for her party (the same way Bill's scandals ended up getting Bush elected).
Re: (Score:2)
Totally missed this, nice.
Re: (Score:2)
There were articles of impeachment of President Nixon moving in the House, the first was voted out of committee. The only reason Nixon wasn't impeached was because he resigned.
Judiciary Committee Approves Article to Impeach President Nixon, 27 to 11 [washingtonpost.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Unless there's some sort of major crime that was committed by Sec. Clinton, I'm not sure what the missing e-mails will tell you. What she wanted for lunch?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm still looking for a crime here.
Re: (Score:2)
One of those deals resulted in Russia owning 20% of US uranium production.
Yeah, about that [factcheck.org]
Meanwhile, we keep hearing about $2 billion dollars in 14 years. Let's call this what it really is: $133 million/year.
Re: (Score:2)
And this does not apply to all americans: Just the ignorant ones which unfortunately make up the voting majority as well as the main media organisations...
Yeah well, it's pretty funny that in the US the majority of the main media organizations lean left. Some days I can't tell the difference between NBC and the CBC.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You are one of the ignorant majority I see.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There are no left parties in the US.
You are one of the ignorant majority I see.
There seem to be one or more gaps between what you believe and what actually is. Unpopularity and non-existence are not the same.
"Left" parties do in fact exist in the US, more than one in fact. Here are a couple:
Communist Party USA [cpusa.org]
Revolutionary Communist Party, USA [revcom.us]
And they work hard to move their agendas forward.
Communist Party USA: 'Working with the Democratic Party' is key [washingtontimes.com]
Thankfully there are few Americans that are given to this ideology which has proven so murderous over the last century.
The Black Bo [harvard.edu]
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, there are fringe parties all over the world and I am aware of that.
Yes, your straw man is irrelevant.
Re: (Score:2)
mod parent up PU-LEEZ
Re: (Score:2)
Truth hurts...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They both breathed air and occasionally took dumps too. However, the statement of fact that started this thread is horribly, irredeemably wrong. The only POTUS' to have actually been impeached were Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton.
I dunno (Score:2)
TFS could have done without last 4 sentences (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Breitbart bits at the end of TFS politicize what would have otherwise been a mediocre Sunday Slashdot submission.
So the fact that she actually did those things makes talking about them political? Or does pretending she didn't do them and talking around them make the conversation political? Hillary-centric submissions that wish away her behavior are the politicized ones.
Re: (Score:2)
Now it falls squarely into the "troll submission" category.
Every Slashdot article about politics falls into the "troll submission" category.
Yar har fiddle-tee-dee! (Score:2, Flamebait)
Why stop at one pirate? Let's interview some from the waters near Somalia to see what they think too!
Re: (Score:2)
They did try to interview Cap'n Johnny Sparrow but he was aboard the Black Pearl at the time, ferrying Scooby and Otis back home after Bananaby, gatekeeper of New Holland, declined to Parley.
Adversary (Score:2, Insightful)
Pretty sure Hillary Clinton is an adversary of anyone who doesn't give money to her or her family. But many powerful people have bought her friendship.
Relative (Score:2)
We know Clinton is bad. Telling us that does not give us new information.
What we want to know is whether she is better or worse than the alternatives.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The alternative is not voting at all, which doesn't help either.
Re: (Score:2)
So, better than the alternatives? Or worse?
The greatest document ever created was obviously Magna Carta.
Did not even self-select (Score:2)
Clinton did not selectively keep emails she thought were state-department related - she came up with a small list of keywords she thought would match state-departmnent matters and deleted ANYTHING THAT DID NOT MATCH.
So basically her keeping state department related emails is only as true as her ability to come up with keywords that matched everything she did over years of service...
Not to worry though, the Chinese and many other foreign governments have a full backup, which they have pinky-sweared not to us
Re:More proof the media is controlled by Republica (Score:5, Insightful)
The other Clinton started a slow economic strangle with FTA and such.
So there's the real debate - which is worse, another Clinton or Bush? A decision between terrible and atrocious.
Re: (Score:2)
Bush is unlikely to be nominated. He is getting no traction with the base. He is supported by the establishment but has no credibility elsewhere.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You are reasoning about this without considering key inputs. It doesn't matter much who "the Establishment" wants if nobody in the base votes for them. The selection process is very much one of mobilizing the base of the party because the outcome is determined by votes of party members, not some secret backroom committee.
There is a wide variety of good Republicans candidates running. Bush has to fight his way through them if he is going to be the frontrunner.
Re:More proof the media is controlled by Republica (Score:4, Insightful)
All things being equal, of course he would.
But all things aren't equal. The "establishment" is just a powerful faction within BOTH parties. It is the establishment pushing Hillary for example.
However, just because the Establishment wants something doesn't mean they're going to get it. Even Jeb's MOTHER said there shouldn't be another Bush in the White house. Process that. He's also not doing well in the straw polls. Seriously ask a republican what they think of Jeb Bush... just ask... seriously... he's not popular.
And there are some reasons for that.
1. Republicans are a little bitter about Bush Jr. They felt he hurt the party's rep and they're not enjoying having to make excuses for him years after he left office. So letting his brother in is not seen as a good idea.
2. Republicans don't like the dynasty idea any more than anyone else. Republicans feel that two Bushes was pushing it and three would just be absurd.
3. Bush's positions are not the popular positions for republicans these days. He's pro amnesty for example which is not popular amongst republicans. He is pro H1-B visa etc which is not popular. He said recently that he doesn't know if he'd order troops into Iraq if he were in the same position as his brother. It is a long list. But the moral of the story is that he is generally unacceptable.
Lets say Hillary for example said she was against the ACA but the Establishment democrats still backed her.
Would she get the nomination?
And before you think that establishment rules the party, I'd point you at Eric Cantor who was very much an establishment republican but ran afoul of the reform wave that is going through the party and was ejected. I believe Eric is working for an investment bank now which most feel validated the ejection because people don't have good feelings about the investment banks these days.
Does any of this make any sense? Jeb isn't getting nominated. He's just soaking up campaign money from dupes in the establishment that think they can steam roll everyone else. I wouldn't worry about him.
Re: (Score:3)
I generally agree Jeb is unlikely to win because people don't want him, but I'm more worried than you are. If your sort of analysis could be counted on, then we could already call a Hillary loss in the general election because people don't like Hillary. She has very little to offer and probably won't be able to do anything to surprise anyone or to motivate a strong turnout.
I'd guess the most likely outcome is President Scott Walker and Vice President Marco Rubio.
Re:More proof the media is controlled by Republica (Score:4, Interesting)
Well, not quite. See there is the primary where the base chooses what they'd like from amongst their own party and then there is the general election where each base robotically chooses its own candiates and then tries to convince some portion of the sleepy middle to go join their side.
I think if the democrats permitted anyone to run against hillary in the primary... seriously... then she'd probably be screwed before the general election. I don't see her getting a primary nod if there is really anyone else on the ticket. I don't see that happening though.
The establishment has really railled around hillary and unlike the republicans that are dealing with that whole revolt against the establishment thing... there is no revolt against the establishment in the DNC. So I think it is quite likely that hillery will get nominated.
Jeb has almost no chance of getting nominated. Ben Carson who likewise has no hope has about as much chance of pulling it off... or huckabee or some other hapless candidate that just has zero chance.
The carson issue is kind of annoying because the republicans NEED black candidates but they need to go through at LEAST the kind of vetting that Obama had... I mean, Obama was a senator for like a year or something. So... clearly presidential material. Ben has no political history. Jack. You don't do that... come out of no where and say "hey guys, why not elect me president!"... I mean... come on. Serve in the senate for at least a year first or SOMETHING. I mean... try your hand at mayor somewhere... ideally governor. Governors are generally better presidents because they have some executive experience.
Generals also do really well for some reason. Don't know why... but go through the list... not a lot of duds there.
Anyway, hillary will likely be the democrat nominee. God knows what the republicans are going to do... it is a god damn three ring circus in the GOP field. Most people figure it is one of three guys but who knows.
Point is, whomever it is will hammer hillary on all the stupid shit she refuses to talk about... and that isn't going to go well in the debates. The debates are meaningless for the base. The base has already decided at that point. They're voting for the person with a D after their name or an R. But the debates matter for the people in the sleepy middle that could go either way. And refusing to answer questions is likely to not go down very well in those settings.
So... as long as the republicans don't field a complete asshat... they should be able to win.
The big problem hillary has that Obama didn't have... is that she's not black. Look, I voted for Obama and I didn't even like his politics. I just thought "hey wouldn't it be nice if we had a black president for once... and maybe we can heal the racial divides and hands across America :D"... Literally my thinking at the time. Which Obama has since gone out of his way to make me feel stupid for by doing everything he can run salt in every racial issue he can find and then call anyone that disagrees with him about anything a racist. And he's remarkably gotten away with that. Hillary is unlikely to be able to do the same thing. She's not black. She does have a vagina... but I rather suspect that isn't going to get her as far in the whole identity politics game. There are after all lots of republicans with vaginas... not so many black republicans.
Anyway... it will be interesting. The identity politics will be everywhere. I'd just like to see Hillary deal with the latest round of embarressing details to come out about her conduct... the whole Uranium mine thing is pretty fucking pathetic.
Re: (Score:2)
I generally agree Jeb is unlikely to win because people don't want him, but I'm more worried than you are. If your sort of analysis could be counted on, then we could already call a Hillary loss in the general election because people don't like Hillary. She has very little to offer and probably won't be able to do anything to surprise anyone or to motivate a strong turnout.
I'd guess the most likely outcome is President Scott Walker and Vice President Marco Rubio.
If you really believe this nonsense, you could make a shit-ton of cash right now. Among the people that actually put their money where their mouth is, you can get Scott Walker at 12-to-1. Meanwhile, Hillary is even money.
None of that is a guarantee of anything, of course; even money represents a 50% shot in the minds of bettors. But the odds have been a pretty good indicator in past presidential elections. Barring some sort of collapse, I don't see why they'd be wrong this time around.
www.oddschecker.c
Re: (Score:2)
He said recently that he doesn't know if he'd order troops into Iraq if he were in the same position as his brother.
Sounds like the only reason to consider voting for him.
Re: (Score:2)
That statement doesn't mean what you probably think it means. The other GOP candidates have said "knowing what we know now, I would not have gone to war," while Marco Rubio goes a step further and says, "and neither would GWB." That Jeb Bush is still vacillating on the issue means he's tone-deaf, stubborn, or simply not in the loop. Given his lack of ability to demonstrate foreign policy awareness, I suspect the later.
Re: (Score:3)
He is supported by the establishment but has no credibility elsewhere.
Hey, it worked for Romney!
Re: (Score:2)
Not at all. Romney did well in the primary amongst the rank and file republicans. Jeb polls very badly in that context and it is in that context that you have to win.
Re:More proof the media is controlled by Republica (Score:4, Interesting)
Unless Democrats cross over and vote Bush in the primaries to help Hillary out. That's how we got McCain.
Re: (Score:2)
That's exaggerated. Such things happen but McCain would have to have gotten a lot of legit votes to bring it to a tipping point. You MIGHT be able to claim that the dems were able to tip it but they weren't enough to bring it across on their own.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, and just like all big tent parties which is both the republicans and democrats... there are people that actually care about that.
So it is relevant... because they care. I'm not saying they should... but they do.
I mean, there are gay republicans... there is a group called the "log cabin republicans" i think... and they're openly gay and generally support the portions of the republican platform that aren't hostile to gay people.
And yet of course you're going to get a lot of gay bashing people that will
Re:More proof the media is controlled by Republica (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe it's just insightful.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
LOL Wut? Republicans Absolutely do not control the media.
Re: (Score:2)
You know that if you just call anyone that says anything you don't like a liar, you've rendered yourself unreasonable and unreasoning...
Are some of the things said about Hillary lies? Sure... same goes for all politicians.
But then a good deal of it is not.
As to this notion that the New York Times is controlled by republicans... idiocy. Even MSNBC is coming down on hillary.
If the media were controlled by republicans then MSNBC wouldn't exist. It does.
Re: (Score:2)
If the media were controlled by liberals then FNC wouldn't exist. It does.
FTFY
Re: (Score:2)
Correct. You can absolutely refute that the media is controlled by liberals.
You could of course point at specific news papers or specific news stations and say they are controlled by liberals or conservatives.
I don't think anyone with any credibility is claiming that ALL of anything is controlled by anyone. You can say MOST of something is controlled by one faction or another IF you can substantiate that. And in some cases... you can.
In this case, saying that everything negative about Hillary is just republ
Re: (Score:2)
Be specific please. When you say most it is little different from all.
Also you don't need to be a democrat to have a legitimate point against hillary.
Just because someone is not of your political camp does not mean they're inherently wrong.
This is just more of that tribalism I was referring to before. This is how primitive people thought and related to each other thousands of years ago.
That people are thinking this way again in the 21st century is fucking pathetic. You can do better.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmmm... not really. You're just generally dismissing all criticism out of hand. If you were being actually generous you'd not do that.
But you did.
Do you want to talk about any of the specifics because on Benghazi and the emails specifically I don't see how you can defend that.
As to people being afraid of her... Quite the opposite. The republicans are actually quite happy that she's the opposition this time around. Obama was a problem because he could just say "you're being racist" every time you threw somet
Re: (Score:2)
Not at all... Do you want me to post some comments from democrat strategists and long time supporters of that party saying hillary is a dud? They're not hard to find, chum.
But if you want to jam your head so far up your own ass that you finally arrive in some magical echo chamber where hillary is a solid candidate? You go ahead and do that. Tell you how it is... isn't trolling.
If you want me to lie to your face and pretend... I can do that for you.
Is that what you want? More people lying to so you aren't ma
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, no. Reporters are only part of the equation. What about owners and editors? How do they vote? How about representation on sunday news shows [politicususa.com]? Shouldn't they be in church rather than in front of a camera if they're trying to be holier than thou?
At best, the media is neither liberal nor conservative. It's driven by getting eyeballs. Conservatives have used this to their advantage for years while playing the ref and screaming 'liberal media' whenever things don't go their way.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Yeah, no. Reporters are only part of the equation. What about owners and editors? How do they vote? How about representation on sunday news shows [politicususa.com]? Shouldn't they be in church rather than in front of a camera if they're trying to be holier than thou?
At best, the media is neither liberal nor conservative. It's driven by getting eyeballs. Conservatives have used this to their advantage for years while playing the ref and screaming 'liberal media' whenever things don't go their way.
Ever seen Network? The problem is that 'liberal agendas' tend to be a lot more photogenic and easier to communicate--for example, it's super-easy to show a sobbing hungry child, but not terribly easy to show in a single, dramatic picture that the chain of events that led to the kid's state is due to the long-term effects of the welfare system's perverse incentives upon the social fabric.
This is also why these problems get to be long-term, because it's very effective to promise to help those people to get yo
Re:Well... (Score:4, Insightful)
Kim Dotcom and Jullian Assange are a fuckton more credible than 90% of US pundits and politicians.
Re:Well... (Score:4, Insightful)
I can understand where you are coming from when you talk about Assange, but Kim Schmitz? That fraudster? Seriously? That guy started as a script kiddie taking the credit for work of real hackers and later stock fraud and other investment scams. And all the time he's been an attention whore of the worst kind.
Re: (Score:3)
He's not fat, just big boned.
Re: (Score:2)
"I'm not fat, I'm husky." Uh...yeah. "I'm portly." Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. "I'm stout." Okay, okay, okay... "I'm big-boned." You're big-ASSED, okay? Dinosaurs as big-boned! Put the fork down.
Re: (Score:2)
This is awesome.
Re: Well... (Score:4, Interesting)
Hilary is not a liberal.
Re: (Score:2)
the term has been hijacked, what was once "liberal" is now classical liberal or libertarian by definition
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Bernie Sanders is what was once called 'Liberal'
It is still what Liberal means in Europe. but it has been scandalized as "Socialism" in the USA by the gop
Libertarian has been hijacked as some small government laissez faire concept which allows for complete control by the wealthy be convincing the masses that there is no benefit to cooperative efforts like Unions to support their common causes
Re: Well... (Score:4, Interesting)
Bernie Sanders is a self described socialist. It means the same as in Europe. Political parties in Europe use the world socialist.
Your claim about Libertarian is nonsense. Perhaps you are too busy. You might want to slow down long enough to at least get some of the facts straight.
2.7 Labor Markets [lp.org]
Employment and compensation agreements between private employers and employees are outside the scope of government, and these contracts should not be encumbered by government-mandated benefits or social engineering. We support the right of private employers and employees to choose whether or not to bargain with each other through a labor union....
Is There a Libertarian Case for Organized Labor? [reason.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Hi cold,
It is easy to mistake what the Libertarians are saying, but many of their authors try to claim that Unions fail to support individuals and thereby are bad for the workers that are in them. This is clearly contradictory to the history of unions the capability that they give workers to negotiate with owners.
It is the intent of Libertarian beliefs to undermine the workers by convincing them that their individual goals out weigh the advantages of collective bargaining for the group goals
Divide and Conqu
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Socialism cannot work in a country that isn't homogenous, or at least where the population by and large shares the same values.
Look what a disaster welfare and the rest is here. It used to work in europe because people wanted to get off it quick, because it was shameful to be on it. That pressure doesn't apply anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hitler was a progressive using the dictionary definition of the term....
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You should seek help before something unfortunate happens.
You, on the other hand, should consider seeking help for S/T DD (Sarcasm/Trolling Detection Disorder).
Re: (Score:3)
Pics or GTFO
Re: (Score:2)
Google any politician's name maybe?
Re: (Score:2)
Politicians hate freedom. Full story at 11.
When it comes to Internet freedom, you are either for it or against it, there is no middle ground.
You are either on the side of Freedom or you are on the side of the terrorists.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean his party received even more votes and got more seats in parliament than the previous election?
I think the best thing to come out of Kim Dotcom is effectively removing Hone Harawira from parliament
Re:Christ (Score:5, Insightful)
Seems like right wing owned media is continuing to push the "haxors hate dems, don't vote" meme
In a world where intelligent people do not bother to vote, the right wingers that want to drag us back into the dark ages will win because their base always votes
Re: (Score:3)
Between reading that and your post, I think it's more like "partisan assholes make stupid posts at each others expense."
News at 11.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
There is nothing the least bit socialist about either Clinton or Obama - as a socialist, believe me I wish there WAS.
Please educate YOURSELF about what "socialism" means before spouting nonsense and calling "independent thought".
Hint: if the words "authoritarian", "state" or "government" is anywhere in the sentence, it's NOT socialism. There is even a very large branch of socialism called "anarcho-socialism" which is completely stateless yet socialist - in fact, anarcho-socialism would be more correctly ca
Re: (Score:3)
sheeples, huh?
Your language reveals that you are more 'stuck' in an unworkable ideology than the people who you criticize
Re: (Score:2)
Politicians with half a braincell, whose party supposedly wants to promote government transparency, don't use private email for official communication.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless they have something to hide. And they think they can get away with it.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
>A little over a decade ago the first human genome was sequenced at a cost of 3 billion dollars. Now, you can spit in a tube, FedEx it to a sequencing facility (at room temperature - no ice required), and a few weeks later FedEx will deliver a USB drive with your genome sequence on it - all for just a bit over a $1000 dollars
Bad example - because the human genome didn't need to cost that back then. It was one of science's greatest mistakes, and it's correction was the biggest breakthrough in genetics sin
Re: (Score:2)
Clinton Cash has errors removed [mediamatters.org]
Since 2001, the Clinton Foundation has amassed a staggering $2 billion, mostly in chunks from globally powerful individuals, multinational companies and foreign countries.
including prominent conservatives and conservative groups [mediamatters.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, "good" ol' Media Matters! When the chips for Bill and Hill are down, they'll come throught!
NYT reporter: Misdirecting on Clinton stories is what Media Matters "exists to do" [hotair.com]
Bombshell book 'Clinton Cash' to get up to 8 revisions, publisher says [nydailynews.com]
... Amazon has emailed those who'd purchased the e-book version that an "updated version" is available.
"The updated version contains the following changes: Significant revisions have been made," the alert reads.
HarperCollins, which published the book, played down the changes.
"The changes that Amazon is referring to as significant are actually quite minor. We made 7-8 factual corrections after the first printing and fixed a technical issue regarding the endnotes. This global fix may have made the changes appear more extensive than they were," HarperCollins spokeswoman Joanna Pinsker said in an email.
Hmm ... Amazon ... Bezos ...big donor to Democrats as I recall.
Well, I guess we'll see what emerges over time.
Re: (Score:2)
And you cite Hot Air? Deflectors engaged!
Well, I guess we'll see what emerges over time.
Well, it's turning out that the book should be recategorized as 'fiction'.
Re: (Score:2)
No, I cite the New York Times reporter quoted there.
So why not just quote the NYT? Oh right, the NYT has a financial interest in the book, so their opinion is a bit tainted. But do go on.
Re: (Score:2)
You must be new.