The problem is that Cory has clearly stated that he doesn't want to collect any money from the book that doesn't go through his publisher. He's not interested in cutting his publisher out of the loop and possibly destroying his relationship with them. This isn't Nine Inch Nails, this is an author who wants to honor his publishing contract while still making his book available to as many people as possible.

And seriously, if people are really arguing that 12 dollars to buy a book is too much and you should be able to donate something less than that, then you need to re-examine your priorities. You're being miserly over a matter of 12 dollars, and because of your 12 dollar gap, a library that actively wants to put this book out there for kids to read and learn from isn't going to get that book. Pony up the 12 bucks already and spring for the full fledged copy of the book so a library can have it. Many of us pay far more for things that are far less important.

If you buy a book for a library or school, you get to give Cory some money for writing it, you get to give the publisher some money for making it available, and the library gets a free book. It's a win win win situation for everyone.

After reading the free version I donated a copy to a school I picked randomly on the list. Thank you for setting this up.

Here's hoping that instead of whining about whether Boing Boing is the appropriate place for these sorts of things, that people take action and do something to put a book in a kid's hands. Whether it's Little Brother or any other great book, complaining about Cory's completely justified posting (it's not even "self-promotion" since he's asking you to buy the book for schools that want it) doesn't do much to change the world for the better.

DNL2BA -

I understand what you're saying, but it doesn't move me much. I don't care if religious people feel threatened by science. Data is data. I guess it's a nice thing to do, to cozy up and try to reconcile two opposing viewpoints, but it's unnecessary and possibly detrimental. It clouds the debate by adding an unnecessary mystical element to the natural world and diluting the clarity of the scientific method. It says to people that while you must think critically about any scientific principle, always be sure to not think so critically about creation myths, and if you do, try to incorporate them into your reasoning so as to not threaten people's belief systems.

It's also kind of condescending to religious people - "let me use science to disprove your crazy creation myth, but here - have a morsel of God in a really vague and abstract form so you don't feel totally crushed!"

I dunno. I'm a cynic and the whole thing rubs me the wrong way. I'd rather see scientists be scientists instead of always trying to find God within the gaps of their research.

Let me clarify what I meant when I said that "There's nothing really concrete that convinces me that the universe is this amazing majestic thing..":

What I mean to say is that "majesticness" or "awe" are not testable things. There's no chemical or substance or physical property that makes something more majestic or awesome than another thing. It's an opinion. So while I can personally believe that the universe is this amazing thing, that doesn't mean anything in the physical world because it's just my opinion, it's how I perceive the physical world.

So when I say that there's nothing concrete that convinces me, I mean that in the sense that there's no physical property of the universe that points to an objective "greatness." The fossil record convinces me that evolution has occurred, the redshift convinces me that the universe is expanding, but there's no evidence that the universe is objectively amazing and awesome. Those are merely internal judgments, each one the opinion of the person making it. One might argue that the cubic light-years of empty space between the stars and planets means that on average the universe is increasingly banal and boring and not very majestic at all. And you can point to all the amazing things that life does when you arrive at one of those stars or planets (if you ever manage to find one amidst all the empty space), but does that matter in the grand scheme of things when on the whole the universe is quite empty? In addition someone might see it as not very majestic that interesting species like dinosaurs are killed by errant meteorites, or that intelligent species are capable of ruining beautiful ecosystems and causing mass extinctions. One might not find the Black Plague so thrilling and majestic and awe-inspiring, and others might think it's a perfect example of the universe doing amazing things. Since they are all opinions, they're every bit as unscientific and unsupported by evidence as opinions in any other direction.

In other words, I'm drawing a division between what we can know objectively about the universe - its composition, its physical properties, and what we merely opine about the universe - how beautiful or ugly it may be, how exciting or boring it may be, etc. As there is no real physical property that you can test for, some sort of "majestic element" or something, the idea that the universe is so awesome that we can call it God is flawed, because it assumes that the universe is objectively amazing in some way. Someone with a different opinion could just as easily call the universe Hell. And they'd be no more or less valid.

Those issues don't really contribute to my understanding of the universe. I'm much more interested to learn about the nature of subatomic particles and whether string theory is true than whether this one guy thinks the universe is miraculous and therefore we should consider equating it with God.

@Cpt. Tim -

"...without having to believe that there are faeries at the bottom too?" :)

Why would faith best serve the things we don't know? Reason serves both. By that rationale we shouldn't try finding out things we don't know because faith takes care of it for us. Reason serves us well for both things we know and do not know, and it helps us move things from one column to the other.

Without having read the book, I'm sympathetic to the argument that this isn't much more than an unsatisfying attempt at reconciliation. Sure, we can call that unnameable majesty that we perceive in the universe "God," but that's really just us labelling something as majestic. It's just an opinion. There's nothing really concrete that convinces me that the universe is this amazing majestic thing; that's just a judgment that this author is placing upon the physical world. Someone could just as easily find the universe not very majestic at all, full of chaos and disorder and ugliness and injustice.

Plus it doesn't answer the question of the "God" most people think exists, the one who listens to our prayers and intervenes on our behalf, helping athletes win the big game and cheering for our side in various wars.

Darnit, no Los Angeles, we're not as hip as Seattle and San Fran. :)

I've been meaning to drive up to San Francisco and hang with a friend of mine, so I might coincide that with your tour.

I really really enjoyed the book. Please continue to give us updates about its success and all the related instructables and remixes, etc. That's the whole point of the book to begin with.

"was the guard just supposed to let the 7-year-old drink his own malt beverage?

No, but they could have reached a happy medium where they could stop the kid from drinking the beverage and not snatch him from his father and throw him in foster care and prevent the father from living in his own house for over a week.

Number 39 is absolutely a Cylon Centurion from the new BSG. You can remove the question mark. I wondered why it took so long to identify, it's instantly recognizable.

Some of the other recognitions y'all have made are astounding.

Why is he still on CNN?

"sugar does make me swing baby. after a long day at school of cheerleading, the debate team and flirting with the captain of the football team i go home and eat a whole jar of sugar!"

You forgot to Watusi with the gang.

An absolutely spellbinding article. I'm not a collector by any means, but I know enough wine snobs and collectors that this article would be extremely interesting reading for.

This could be a movie!

It's in the first book.

Shooting into the air isn't always the best idea. Remember what happened to Woody Allen in Love and Death?

"Does this come out through dry cleaning or is this like gravy?"

Totally randomly, I happen to know Sommer Gentry and Dorry Segev, two of the scientists who developed this process. They also happen to be two of the country's best lindy hoppers. Sommer's big project when she was at MIT was creating a robotic arm that could accurately lead lindy hop. You can see them dancing in a contest here, although I imagine being a great dancer pales in comparison to this kind of work.

It's really great to see how they're making the world a much better place by creating this system.