I've no clue which publisher changed their minds but... given that they're the publisher of 1984, perhaps they subscribe to the ideas within? Perhaps this was a neat demonstration that we live in a 1984-type world already, with Amazon as the tool ?
Wild and crazy theory but that would make this whole situation somehow perfect:D
So, you mention you don't own a Kindle, which means you weren't affected by this incident yet you're stomping your feet as if someone stole your big wheel. Odd behavior.
This is an example of someone having principles; they can be interested in the details, even when it doesn't affect them. You should try it. Free yourself from defending positions based solely on whether you benefit and consider what is right or fair.
It's meaningless though; Amazon are offering something more substantial.. they're gonna put things back to how they were before they started messing with you. woohoo! Gee thanks. All hail Amazon.
This is nothing more than an attempt to put the cat back in the bag but it's too late.
Something more substantial would be:
* an enforceable (contract) guarantee that they're not going to trash the paying customers' rights at a moment's notice when someone asks them to in future. Anything less is just offensive.
I doubt it took them two months to get around to 'protecting rights holders' whilst recovering something bought in good faith. Ultimately, everyone pretends that the customer is king; fairplay to Amazon for demonstrating clearly that this isn't so.
Azamon's CEO was quoted as saying "We'll return *our* property, *this time*, as long as you forget that we own you and keep giving us money in exchange for something that we may decide to take back at a later date..
My mom, as one example, writes letters to TV stations protesting violence and sexuality. She doesn't watch any movie rated higher than PG-13, and avoids violence altogether.
Only in america there can be an uproar about sexual content when most games in existence is about killing people. Wtf is wrong with you people? Its ok to kill and mame people without any reason but its not ok when two consenting adults have sex?
Something is fundamentally and utterly broken in the US. The same people who shouts for unborn childrens rights to life cry in pain when someone wants to supply them with medicare once they are born.
Stupid fucks.
Stupid fucks who moderate +1 troll when they read an inconvenient truth:D
As they are too cowardly to impose their values on themselves retroactively (IE by killing themselves off, and/or to stop breeding), they have to try forcing it on everyone else instead.
Perhaps that's really the subconscious motivation here; proto-brain says "ensure that noone else procreates and at the same time control an army of brainwashed killing machines. There can be only one!"
This wasn't a lawsuit by people upset by the nudity, it was a lawsuit by shareholders, upset that the company had lost money. They felt the whole thing had been poorly managed, and wanted changes.
Nip it in the bud I say; who knows how far they would have slid down the slippery slope unless reigned-in? It may even have gotten to the stage where the shareholders were forced to earn their own living! and omg, noone wants that!
Its funny that you shoot people, hijack cars, drive over people and do all kinds of illegal things but when theres normal activities like sex that all people do, everyone goes "oh my god things like that shouldn't be allowed!" and bring in the lawsuits.
You can do those things in real life without a $20M fine - one more reason why ppl suck.
Yeah, that's the ticket. Every person who makes any money singing, or selling recordings of songs, or selling advertising on 'free' streams/radio/tv broadcasts, songs embedded in video games, or any other media, now owes me a license fee.
Today's thread about the MAFIAA is that way ---------->
What I'm saying is a political leader backs up his position using the threat of force and the printed word -alone- will never be a match for that.
Bands of armed 'police' wander the streets ready to enforce the status quo at their disgression. The idea being that they are enforcing a set of laws which benefit all collectively and equally. Of course, this is not the case.
you'd find that the left is criticizing the Obama administration rather heavily for continuing a lot of bad Bush administration policies regarding illegal wiretapping
Since when is a printed word able to measure up to the threat of armed attack? Let us face facts - nothing is being done - their is no opposition - western democracy is a sham - our 'leaders' do as they like and suppress any *real* dissent with force. We have, most of us, been born into a game where the outcome has already been decided.
Yup... It won't be "the end" until the government stops abiding by the election results (or starts fixing the elections).
No doubt I'm exposing myself to a 'whoosh' reply but.. this has already happened. Why is it that there appears to be mass amnesia on the subject of the election that Bush jr stole only two terms ago?
Also, there's been violence since the civil war - everywhere else in the world, at the hands of your leaders. 'Terrorism' is simply payback.
It seems to me that much of society is built upon the idea that certain people are more intelligent, organised and well-meaning than others and that they should be given power for the benefit of us all. This has been shown, time and again, to be a dangerous assumption which has allowed unscrupulous opportunists to gain control over ordinary people.
How much longer is this going to continue? What we need is a system which is immune to corruption; immune to the expression of private interests above the general interest.
This means that the current system must go. All of its supporters must be removed from their positions of exploitation. Let's start again.
I beg to differ. It's an apparently bottomless pit with narrow steps, each of height comparable to 'yours' embedded in the pit-wall.
For what it's worth, I was attempting to say that it's socially 'normal' to consider depression 'bad' and maybe that's part of the problem. If the study is to be believed, this is a natural thing which shouldn't be stigmatized. Imagine how it would be if there were stigma associated with, *thinks for a while...* eating. Sooner or later you're gonna need to do it but shy away because you know it's 'bad' or will be unpleasant.
Maybe the answer is to just go with it until it passes?
Note: I'm not attempting to trivialise what it means to be depressed.
Yah, that seems to be the core of it; the trivializing.
I'd be interested in seeing the results of a study measuring, for equally-aware individuals, whether this is an active process - whether 'happy people' choose to change the importance of things which tend to make them less happy and whether 'unhappy people' are unable 'artificially' change something's importance simply to achieve a desired end.
Uhh, but aren't they saying (*) that depression allows one to override one's tendency to be breadth-first (i.e. allocate appropriate brain-time to all one's daily responsilities) and instead let everything fall into disrepair so that more time may be spent in single-minded obsessive thought and that *this is a good thing* ?
As I read your phrase 'depression, with extremely single minded and obsessive thinking', it was augmented (for me) with what's probably an inherited value-judgement, that this type of thinking is 'bad' or unhealthy in some way. I'm not clear how common this judgement is but maybe it will change as a result of the article's 'findings' ?
(*) - no doubt I've revealed myself to be an article-reader, omg, shhh, don't tell anyone!
Slashdot Mirror
I've no clue which publisher changed their minds but... given that they're the publisher of 1984, perhaps they subscribe to the ideas within? Perhaps this was a neat demonstration that we live in a 1984-type world already, with Amazon as the tool ?
Wild and crazy theory but that would make this whole situation somehow perfect :D
This is an example of someone having principles; they can be interested in the details, even when it doesn't affect them. You should try it. Free yourself from defending positions based solely on whether you benefit and consider what is right or fair.
At the point of sale, everything was legal. Only afterwards did the seller have a change of heart.
Sales are customer-initiated. Once the sale has completed, no further action should take place unless the customer initiates further contact.
It's meaningless though; Amazon are offering something more substantial.. they're gonna put things back to how they were before they started messing with you. woohoo! Gee thanks. All hail Amazon.
This is nothing more than an attempt to put the cat back in the bag but it's too late.
Something more substantial would be:
* an enforceable (contract) guarantee that they're not going to trash the paying customers' rights at a moment's notice when someone asks them to in future. Anything less is just offensive.
I doubt it took them two months to get around to 'protecting rights holders' whilst recovering something bought in good faith. Ultimately, everyone pretends that the customer is king; fairplay to Amazon for demonstrating clearly that this isn't so.
Azamon's CEO was quoted as saying "We'll return *our* property, *this time*, as long as you forget that we own you and keep giving us money in exchange for something that we may decide to take back at a later date..
Jesus? is that you?
Stupid fucks who moderate +1 troll when they read an inconvenient truth :D
Perhaps that's really the subconscious motivation here; proto-brain says "ensure that noone else procreates and at the same time control an army of brainwashed killing machines. There can be only one!"
Nip it in the bud I say; who knows how far they would have slid down the slippery slope unless reigned-in? It may even have gotten to the stage where the shareholders were forced to earn their own living! and omg, noone wants that!
You can do those things in real life without a $20M fine - one more reason why ppl suck.
Today's thread about the MAFIAA is that way ---------->
The phrase 'your ass is mine' belongs to me; now *your ass is mine*.
lol
Gotta say; I'd feel safer locked in a room with Alien and Predator than News Corp. or Disney.
What I'm saying is a political leader backs up his position using the threat of force and the printed word -alone- will never be a match for that.
Bands of armed 'police' wander the streets ready to enforce the status quo at their disgression. The idea being that they are enforcing a set of laws which benefit all collectively and equally. Of course, this is not the case.
Since when is a printed word able to measure up to the threat of armed attack? Let us face facts - nothing is being done - their is no opposition - western democracy is a sham - our 'leaders' do as they like and suppress any *real* dissent with force. We have, most of us, been born into a game where the outcome has already been decided.
That would be the americans... you, presumably. What a shame your news doesn't report it.
No doubt I'm exposing myself to a 'whoosh' reply but.. this has already happened. Why is it that there appears to be mass amnesia on the subject of the election that Bush jr stole only two terms ago?
Also, there's been violence since the civil war - everywhere else in the world, at the hands of your leaders. 'Terrorism' is simply payback.
It seems to me that much of society is built upon the idea that certain people are more intelligent, organised and well-meaning than others and that they should be given power for the benefit of us all. This has been shown, time and again, to be a dangerous assumption which has allowed unscrupulous opportunists to gain control over ordinary people.
How much longer is this going to continue? What we need is a system which is immune to corruption; immune to the expression of private interests above the general interest.
This means that the current system must go. All of its supporters must be removed from their positions of exploitation. Let's start again.
I beg to differ. It's an apparently bottomless pit with narrow steps, each of height comparable to 'yours' embedded in the pit-wall.
For what it's worth, I was attempting to say that it's socially 'normal' to consider depression 'bad' and maybe that's part of the problem. If the study is to be believed, this is a natural thing which shouldn't be stigmatized. Imagine how it would be if there were stigma associated with, *thinks for a while...* eating. Sooner or later you're gonna need to do it but shy away because you know it's 'bad' or will be unpleasant.
Maybe the answer is to just go with it until it passes?
Note: I'm not attempting to trivialise what it means to be depressed.
:( - I mean :)
Yah, that seems to be the core of it; the trivializing.
I'd be interested in seeing the results of a study measuring, for equally-aware individuals, whether this is an active process - whether 'happy people' choose to change the importance of things which tend to make them less happy and whether 'unhappy people' are unable 'artificially' change something's importance simply to achieve a desired end.
Nice. I like the amber 'Freak' badge next to your name...
Uhh, but aren't they saying (*) that depression allows one to override one's tendency to be breadth-first (i.e. allocate appropriate brain-time to all one's daily responsilities) and instead let everything fall into disrepair so that more time may be spent in single-minded obsessive thought and that *this is a good thing* ?
As I read your phrase 'depression, with extremely single minded and obsessive thinking', it was augmented (for me) with what's probably an inherited value-judgement, that this type of thinking is 'bad' or unhealthy in some way. I'm not clear how common this judgement is but maybe it will change as a result of the article's 'findings' ?
(*) - no doubt I've revealed myself to be an article-reader, omg, shhh, don't tell anyone!