This is a pretty bad article. It seems like a hit piece trying to paint the guy as a war profiteer, because...ebola? I have no real love for domain squatters, b

This is a pretty bad article. It seems like a hit piece trying to paint the guy as a war profiteer, because...ebola? I have no real love for domain squatters, but the guy isn't any worse because he happens to own a domain name related to a disease that is in the news. Lines like: > Doesn’t he know that Ebola has killed more than 4,000 people in West Africa, has breached the United States, and that international health officials now warn of state collapse and widespread chaos? Doesn’t that tug at his heart strings? just make me roll my eyes. The idea that he should be so very ashamed of himself for owning ebola.com (and should then obviously give it out of contrition and the goodness of his heart to...someone else) is odious. Who should legitimately own ebola.com? Ebola, Inc? Pfizer? It's difficult to make an argument that it should be owned by the government, since we have the entire .gov tld for that purpose.