Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Thursday January 26 2017, @04:17PM   Printer-friendly
from the buy-used-and-pay-cash dept.

CNN Money reports:

The book publisher Penguin is printing more copies of George Orwell's dystopian classic "1984" in response to a sudden surge of demand.

On Tuesday evening and Wednesday morning the book was #1 on Amazon's computer-generated list of best-selling books.

[...] "We put through a 75,000 copy reprint this week. That is a substantial reprint and larger than our typical reprint for '1984,'" a Penguin spokesman told CNNMoney Tuesday evening.

[...] According to Nielsen BookScan, which measures most but not all book sales in the United States, "1984" sold 47,000 copies in print since Election Day in November. That is up from 36,000 copies over the same period the prior year.

When the submitter visited amazon.com, the book was ranked #3.

Additional coverage:

Related stories:

Washington DC's Public Library Will Teach People How to Avoid the NSA
George Orwell's "1984" Telescreens are Here...
Traveling to Thailand? Don't Pack George Orwell's "1984"


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 26 2017, @09:18PM

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 26 2017, @09:18PM (#459144) Journal

    Simply repeating your bullshit does not make it any more true than it was the first time you said it.

    So you're saying I should back it with some facts? Well, we already have the fact that the Obama administration did the same thing and that for better or worse, the current actions of the Trump administration seem to be standard procedure and not particularly alarming the last time they happened.

    Second, Obama demonstrated [soylentnews.org] that he was going to be a duplicitous president back after he won the Democrat convention in 2008.

    I gave Obama a chance until he "triangulated to the center" by voting for the amendment of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act [wikipedia.org] (FISA) in 2008 to allow for mass surveillance. When you promise something important to get nominated (such as a stand against mass surveillance) and immediately betray that trust after you get what you want, then what other betrayals are you up to?

    So there was reason to think Obama wouldn't be a great president even in 2008, IF you were paying attention. Instead, I find that with the context, it's interesting just how similar Obama and Trump really are. But then, voting for someone because of vague promises that you want to hear or because they're not someone else, tends to lead to the same sort of personalities in power.

  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 26 2017, @09:23PM

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 26 2017, @09:23PM (#459148) Journal

    Well, we already have the fact that the Obama administration did the same thing and that for better or worse, the current actions of the Trump administration seem to be standard procedure and not particularly alarming the last time they happened.

    Whoops, I thought this was part of the story about Trump freezing certain actions of the EPA. In support of my assertion that the Trump action is very similar to previous administrations (at least at present!), we have this story [nytimes.com].

    Longtime employees at three of the agencies — including some career environmental regulators who conceded that they remained worried about what President Trump might do on policy matters — said such orders were not much different from those delivered by the Obama administration as it shifted policies from the departing White House of George W. Bush. They called reactions to the agency memos overblown. On Wednesday, Douglas Ericksen, a spokesman for the E.P.A., said that grants had been only briefly frozen for review, and that they would be restarted by Friday.

    “I’ve lived through many transitions, and I don’t think this is a story,” said a senior E.P.A. career official who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the news media on the matter. “I don’t think it’s fair to call it a gag order. This is standard practice. And the move with regard to the grants, when a new administration comes in, you run things by them before you update the website.”

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 27 2017, @01:56AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 27 2017, @01:56AM (#459261)

      LOL @ "said a senior E.P.A. career official who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the news media on the matter."

      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday January 27 2017, @06:10AM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday January 27 2017, @06:10AM (#459334) Journal

        LOL @ "said a senior E.P.A. career official who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the news media on the matter."

        So? Is it somehow incorrect what was said?

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @09:33AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2017, @09:33AM (#460190)

          So. It is somehow ironic what was said.

  • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 26 2017, @09:36PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 26 2017, @09:36PM (#459157)

    > Second, Obama demonstrated that he was going to be a duplicitous president back after he won the Democrat convention in 2008.

    Wah! Obama wasn't 100% to your liking. So he's a total science-denying hypocrite.

    We all know you love your climate change denialism like it was your mother's milk.
    Its obvious you are more than happy to endorse EPA muzzling because it fits your agenda.

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday January 27 2017, @06:25AM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday January 27 2017, @06:25AM (#459335) Journal

      Wah! Obama wasn't 100% to your liking. So he's a total science-denying hypocrite.

      Backing mass surveillance of innocent people shouldn't be to your liking either.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 27 2017, @08:42AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 27 2017, @08:42AM (#459378)

    Simply repeating your bullshit does not make it any more true than it was the first time you said it.

    So you're saying I should back it with some facts?

    No, the original AC was saying that simply repeating your bullshit does not make it any more true. Do we need to tell you one more time?

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday January 27 2017, @02:22PM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday January 27 2017, @02:22PM (#459457) Journal
      I've since provided more supporting evidence. I got this asserting things without supporting evidence problem figured out.

      Or are you saying that true things become not true because I post about them? Did reality change itself so that Obama didn't vote for FISA after he said he wouldn't? Or how about his most epic of lies, "If you like your health care plan, you can keep it". Now that I mentioned it, did I retcon it into nonexistence?

      Or perhaps in your post-factual world, it no longer matters what is true?