This makes no sense. Imagine that SpaceX took a photograph on the moon, and then a university freely used the image in its marketing materials. Would that make sense? Would it make any more sense if the university had a space program? No.
Both you and pdog have made interesting observations, I suppose, but as I said, neither book described our reality accurately. Our reality is far more complicated. As you point out, millions have protested, but tens of millions haven’t. As pdog remarked, the world in 1984 might be described as a totalitarian hellscape, in part, but parts of our world can also be described as such; pdog needs to look outside his locale, I’m afraid. Our world really is like a combination of those two books, even if your neighborhoods aren’t. We haven’t matched the world portrayed in either book, obviously, but it feels to me like were transitioning to a world a lot like a combination of those books. Let’s review things in a decade or two and see what comes to be.
1984, followed directly by Brave New World. Our world resembles a lot from each of these books. Much like in 1984, we have devices and companies constantly monitoring us (iOS, Android, Facebook, etc.), we have “news programs” and websites seemingly modeled after the “two minutes hate”, and we clearly have some Ministry of Truth-like misinformation getting spread around while accurate information gets lost or ignored. Much like in Brave New World, we have soma-like drugs, distractions and trivialities occupying people while they accept the world as it is and even shy away from wanting to change things. Really, we live in a world that blends together much of what was described in 1984 and Brave New World. Neither book predicted the future accurately, but together the picture these books painted is pretty damn accurate, and disturbing.
After just now hearing about Amazon Echo, I positively, absolutely cannot be the only person who immediately thought of this show: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_Humans
"Amazon should hire a world-class book designer to serve as product manager for the Kindle."
I think this comment is just about right. The Kindle team really needs to focus on making the Kindle as good as traditional books, when applicable, but better than books whenever possible. Currently the Kindle fails to be as good as books where it counts most (e.g., clarity/sharpness of text, page layout decisions [e.g., hyphens], font choices, display contrast, index functionality, TOC functionality), and it only does a decent job of employing some of the technological advantages it has over books (e.g., the Kindle has a great weight-to-content-offered ratio, it backs up your collection remotely). It kind of surprises me that the Kindle hasn't already surpassed traditional books in every way. Maybe my expectations are too high, or maybe Amazon is more concerned with the bottom line than responding to readers like me. I don't know.
In addition to deserving that huge apology, Dixon deserves monetary compensation from Josh Linkner. Words don't write themselves, and so Linkner had to realize he was using someone else's work without permission -- even if he didn't know who authored the work he was plagiarizing. Linkner only cares because he was caught red-handed. If I was Dixon I would seek statutory damages without question.