He submitted the book voluntarily for review. What did you expect the people who reviewed it to do? Declassify stuff just because he had it in his book? Why did he do that? I'm guessing Streisand Effect.

He submitted the book for review because if the book was cleared, the government would have a very difficult time prosecuting him for anything included in the book after it was published.

However, he was not actually obligated to follow the recommendations made in the review, nor can the government prevent initial publication of the material by his publisher regardless of whether he followed those recommendations.

What the government can do is attempt to prosecute him after the manuscript is disclosed or published by proving that the book violated the law or the non-disclosure agreement that he signed for his pre-1953 government work. The fact that the information is already publicly known would greatly affect that. There's also very little that the government could practically do to his publisher. You should read up on the Pentagon Papers to see how this works in the real world.

If you're miffed, [libertarian bromide redacted]

Be miffed at yourself, and the fool who thinks that properly researching your own major purchases is a "libertarian bromide."

So sayeth this democrat to the fool.

Even if withholding that information only slows down a terrorist by mere days or hours, it's worth it.

No, it's not.

In addition, our Constitution lets the author make that decision, not the government. We have a whole theory concerning "prior restraint" that cannot simply be tossed away because "why make it any easier for a would-be terrorist bomb maker to find it and make use of it." You only get to challenge the author for allegedly disclosing critical secrets after they're published. That helpfully prevents the government from suppressing embarrasing, non-secret information by fiat.

The First Ammendment doesn't trump and never has trumped public safety.

The U.S. Supreme Court disagrees with you. The author would have to be inciting imminent lawless action. Reporting on the history of the hydrogen bomb is neither inciting nor likely to produce imminent 'safety' effects.

You bought a Haswell-based MBP knowing full well that Broadwell had been released and would work its way into the MBP line shortly.

You also ignored the fact that Apple has been updating the Retina MacBook Pros like clockwork.

If you're miffed, be miffed at yourself. Nobody hid this from you.

Companies in other states that buy CA produced crops should have to send the watere equivalent back to CA.

Yes, because California imports nothing from other states, and there's no logical way that other states could 'charge' for rest-of-US produced products, CA is sure to come out a winner.

Hint: CA had better become even more vegan, since it's only 4th in beef, and pretty much in the bottom tier of poultry and pork.

First they invented SecureBoot, but that was OK, because you could turn it off.

Then they prevented disabling it, but that was OK...

Because they didn't. "No worries, because Microsoft also mandated that every system must have a UEFI configuration setting to turn the protection off, allowing booting other operating systems. This situation may now change. At its WinHEC hardware conference in Shenzhen, China, Microsoft said the setting to allow Secure Boot to be turned off will become optional when Windows 10 arrives."

They didn't prevent disabling it. They no longer mandated providing the option to disable it. If your device manufacturer suddenly decides to remove the previously mandatory "off" setting option, that's on them, not Microsoft.

We're still back at "first."

Shouldn't have said molten. This is what I was thinking of. Partial melts. You have to get to the base of the inner mantle to reach molten.

...then up and out the other side (*eye twitch*).

Already noted, but irrelevant since making it down 150 miles and passing through a molten inner mantle are required well before antigravity.

Sorry, I was writing actual content rather than obsessively thread monitoring. Too bad only one other post actually mentions the melting/dilution issue, using Wikipedia no less.

What on earth is "an Uruguay syndrom", and why does google have no idea either.

An attempt to be cute with the concept of the "China syndrome," but since the reactor is in Japan you name somewhere in the Western Hemisphere. This is actually a marginally better form of cute since China and the US are both in the Northern Hemisphere, and Japan and Uruguay are actually separated by the equator as well. Your seemingly self-sustaining molten nuclear fuel melts its way through the earth - then up and out the other side (*eye twitch*).

The problem being it's utter bollocks. Anything that becomes molten will mix into the fuel and dilute it, lowering the reaction rate and moving you further and further away from a self-sustaining reaction.

The real concern is that you melt through the containment vessel (apparently not likely; but then explosions within the containment vessel and seismic activity aren't helping you any), through the earth, and down to the water table so that there is a steam explosion. That potentially scatters the nuclear fuel and fission products out the containment vessel.

Try that as a business. If Google arbitrarily decides that you no longer show up on search lists, or even that you no longer show up on a map--your business basically ends, unless all your business comes from the sidewalk.

So is the Zagat guide a monopoly that must take all restaurant entries?I mean, if you run an eatery and don't appear in the Zagat guide, then you may as well not exist to people who use the Zagat guide to determine where to eat.

At what point does the Zagat's guide turn into such a monopoly? How many competing food guides must exist before Zagat does not have a monopoly simply by dint of how many people use it? Why must the Zagat guide seek out and find your eatery to list it, as opposed to you providing the information that the Zagat guide wants?

Your complaint that you can't 'quit' using the advertising channel that customers choose to pay attention to does not confer magical monopoly status on that channel. There are many others. While you may not like that you have do deal with one particular one, it is your customers who get to chose which advertising channel to pay attention to, not you who get to dictate what the advertising channel does.

had shills packed to the rafters demanding that the program stay in place

Not everyone who opposes you is automatically a shill.

Claiming so doesn't show insight, it shows an utter lack of awareness that unbiased observers may weigh things differently than you.

Show us that they've been paid or have some other financial interest in the outcome.

Otherwise recognize that you yourself could be labeled a shill by your own particularized definition.

But not by the city. Learn to read.

By god, you're right! And that makes people who are not licensed by any governmental entity entirely equivalent to those who might be licensed by a county, a state, a Federal administrative agency, or the like!

the citya regulatory body

Crumb. Now you need to address the actual argument instead a pedantive construction of a sentence.

So here's a guy who calls himself a "libertarian", declaring that it's not legal for a private entity to refuse to do business with him based on their political views.

Where does he declare that it's illegal for FedEx to refuse his business?

"Defense Distributed's founder Cody Wilson argues that rather than a legal ambiguity, FedEx is instead facing up to the political gray area of enabling the sale of new, easily accessible tools that can make anything -- including deadly weapons. 'They're acting like this is legal when in fact it's the expression of a political preference,' says Wilson."

He's declared that they've disguised a political decision as 'due caution' concerning a legal issue, not that what FedEx is doing is itself illegal. Because you'd have to own a political decision, but you can blame the government for 'ambiguity' even if the government isn't actually threatening to interpret the law that way.

It's not irony, it's poor reading comprehension... on your part.