Your statement over EU accounts ia simply not true, I'm afraid. You are, at the least, very severely misinformed. OK?
ALSO CHarlie @ 249 Precisely. I THINK ... that Britain just goes - "EAW - take him (or her) away!" Rather than actually looking at the case. Either way, it is still contrary to the Bill of Rights.
]]>I never argued that the system is perfect. However, even in that case, there was a case presented, and an arrest warrant issued in Greece.
In this case there are lots of things that should be done about how the case was handled in Greece. Based on this specific case you can suggest that the student's lawyer should have gone to Greece, argued that the confessions were obtained by torture, retracted and the case should be dismissed. You can equally argue that if there's an argument for dismissal the EAW should be suspended as an amendment to the current law. I'm not saying there's no room for amendment when bad applications of the law, such as the one you write so emotively about come to light.
But you're still wrong, a legal warrant for his arrest was issued by a court. Just because you don't agree it should have been doesn't automatically mean it violates the Bill of Rights. It simply means we, in the UK, accept that the courts in the other countries of the EU have the authority to issue warrants of arrest over our citizens in our country and they (should at least) reciprocally accept it when we issue it over theirs.
I think there should be some version of the (now defunct) arrestable offence too. But the idea of being extradited for a parking ticket... no. I'm not saying you shouldn't pay the fines and so on, but some sense of scale please.
]]>I once consulted on this briefly for Simon and Schuester and they degree of technical illiteracy in the analytics space was mind blowing
Here is an article about how Walmart does this
]]>IMHO, all cases involving Brit citizens of this sort, wherever the supposed offence has taken place, should be tried here, under our rules. If it's really that serious, then the country making the case for a prosecution will bring the case. If it's not that serious (Polish parking-tickets) then they needn't bother.
Your comment: but some sense of scale please. is spot on the mark, thank you. The problem is that we have a one-size-fits-all "policy" which is plainly crap.
]]>"Discount code is valid for one time 25% off any eBook purchase excluding those from the following publishers: In the UK - Hachette Book Group, HarperCollins, Penguin, Random House, Simon & Schuster, Wiley, and Zondervan, and all respective subsidiary imprints. In the US - Hachette Book Group, HarperCollins, Macmillan, Penguin, Random House, Simon & Schuster, Wiley, and Zondervan, and all respective subsidiary imprints. In CA - Hachette Book Group, HarperCollins, Macmillan, Penguin, Simon & Schuster, Wiley, and Zondervan, and all respective subsidiary imprints. In NZ - Hachette Book Group, and Wiley, and all respective subsidiary imprints."
]]>Ahem: that discount voucher is no discount voucher at all. Because the excluded publishers are basically all of the big five plus the biggest academic publisher -- between them responsible for 80% of the entire trad publishing market.
That Kobo voucher should be illegal as false advertising -- all they're offering you the discount on is self-published stuff, and a shout-out to small presses.
]]>Yes, thanks for your suggestions. Those are broadly those that people have already made, though (someone else I know of, who self-published mutualist/anarchist material, told me he used a blog he coincidentally had to get editorial feedback, but I suspect that that might harm my eventual credibility in reaching the policy arena). They also suggested that law faculties might provide some of the right sort of recent graduates or similar, i.e. people who could get up to speed on technical material and could function as the intelligent but uninformed and non-specialist readers I want to reach - if I end up needing readers with a maths. background then I've failed. I also made some preliminary enquiries of the Monash economics faculty since I got an M.B.A. with some economics units at Monash University, lo these many years ago now.
But finding impoverished graduates isn't the bottleneck on the critical path for me, not in isolation. I've since found out that unless I can pull off crowd funding with time points and get my next drafts done to the matching time points and line up an editor for those time points at mutually agreed rates, I can't go that route at all even if I can find someone cheap - particularly since my own issues make my meeting any time points that much more rubbery. So the only half way realistic course I can see at the moment is to proceed by myself, slowly so I can get the silver lining benefit of delay making my own eye fresher again, and to hope I can contact someone else who wants some editing as and when (I did once edit a quarterly amateur magazine for over a year or so, so I do have the basic skills). That way, we can swap editing jobs, like villages in Papua-New Guinea who swap the pigs they have raised from pigletcy as they can't bear to kill and eat the ones they have come to know. Maybe someone doing media studies would need an editing swap like that, only I don't have any contacts in that field at all, not even the cold ones in the Monash economics faculty, and the publisher I've talked to only has a very slight overlap with the policy field I'm addressing (I think I've pushed my luck with him already). Failing that, I have to do my best to compensate for being a one man band; at least I don't have a blind spot about it, so that's a start.
And, of course, there might be something out there I just haven't thought of at all, so I want to encourage suggestions, not dump on them. So thanks again.
]]>Specifically, in December 2013, AMZN was ordered to return the $ it overcharged its U.S.-based e-book customers. AMZN chose to 'return' this money to affected customers by issuing credit, basically, forcing these same customers to buy more e-books from AMZN.*
All AMZN US-based (excepting non-participating states, e.g., Minn) customers were supposedly emailed this info around March 15 2014 and advised that this 'credit' program would come into effect on March 25 2014, with a firm close-out date one year out.
I got credit from both Amazon and B&N.
]]>Anyway, I'm not entirely sure Kobo can be blamed for this. I know that when agency pricing was on, discounts and coupons and the like on agency priced titles were strictly verboten. That's what killed off Fictionwise's Buywise discount club, and subsequently Fictionwise itself.
I don't know what the current terms of their contracts with such publishers are, but it's possible they might still forbid such discounting. Especially given that Kobo doesn't exactly have the negotiating might of Amazon.
Agency pricing is apparently still ongoing in Canada, given that Kobo is complaining that ending it there would put them out of business. Which would mean the coupon definitely couldn't be used on agency pricing publishers there. So perhaps to keep things simple they just made the Canadian limitations apply everywhere.
]]>One problem that I do have with it is that the author seems to be trying to have it both ways with Amazon: On the one hand he points out that Amazon is the master of just-in-time ordering and delivery, but then also tries to say that they would have great difficulty delaying specific orders. As one commenter on the article highlights: since Amazon already clearly has a process in place for fast-tracking some orders while ensuring others don't arrive too soon, it would seem to be trivially easy to slow the delivery of specific products down.
Also, wouldn't it be better business (from a customer point of view) for Amazon to continue to take orders and pre-orders, only offering refunds if and when it absolutely cannot honour them? Not to mention more damaging in the long run for Hachette (in PR terms) when Amazon can turn round to their customers and say: "Here's your money back; sorry we couldn't deliver your book; it's due to a supplier (Hachette) problem." This would be more indicative of a company concerned with keeping it's customers happy (as the article implies), rather than a company trying to screw it's suppliers to the wall.
]]>OGH wrote, "...my product has to compete for your attention and money in the same market as the [...] Assassin's Creed games. Neither of which have a near-monopoly incumbent like Amazon squatting between them and their customer base, trying relentlessly to depress prices...."
Except there is in the case of video games. Steam has a near monopoly on digital PC game sales channel. (Consoles might also be "video games", but they're a very different beast. Like comparing fiction and non-fiction markets.) Even a competing service run by one of the largest game publishers (Origin by EA) can't compete with Steam. Steam is well-known for their regular sales where games are discounted as much as 90%.
Now, Valve might not seem to be quite so cutthroat as Amazon, but it's a very similar situation and mostly hinges on the graces of the 800 lb gorilla who controls the vast majority of the market. We video game developers just pray that Steam doesn't choose to alter the terms of the agreement further.
]]>