@wraith808: I am sorry if you didn't like my comment - I wasn't sure you would. And I do apologise if you feel offended in any way. It was meant in good faith and intended to help. I really dislike seeing people being made a victim of and always want to help, but when they seem to invite victimisation I find it terribly frustrating.
What struck me as odd was the apparent act of
complaining about risks that eventuated - "There is something seriously wrong with this" - without articulating things more clearly. It seemed that you were demonstrating the behaviour of an
external locus of control, whereas the unpleasant outcome (which you described at some length) apparently arose from your
own (i.e., internal) buying decision(s). Whether wittingly, you had already effectively accepted the potential risks by the act of purchase, and established a legally binding contract with the suppliers - for both the hardware and the media to be loaded into it.
I can quite understand people wanting - or even being determined - to buy (say) e-book tablets regardless of the implications or potential risks (
caveat emptor). The psychology of selling tells us that most purchases are irrational, which is why things are marketed the way they are - you just have to help the buyer stack up enough "want" to overcome any spoken/unspoken sales objections they may harbour.
So we justify buying the thing. But to whinge after the risks eventuate could seem to be shirking responsibility for the outcome - probably a form of displacement.
So I would recommend that people buy e-book tablets for the purposes you intend - e.g., including for reading books with greater facility/ease/convenience than (say) lugging a library of hardcopy books around. But always the caveat.
If you wanted to take the risks, then what could you lose in the gamble? Probably not an awful lot really - not a serious loss, anyway. And you'd get some bother if/when it did go wrong, prompting you to spend your valuable cognitive surplus attempting to resolve the issues with "customer services" - and (say) working out your annoyance by posting about it on a blog - rather than perhaps something more positive/constructive. And then spend more of your cognitive surplus finding a potentially better alternative.
But that's one of the principles in operation here - deciding to take a gamble, and accepting responsibility for the consequences and working through them. Life is a succession of problems and us working through them (per M. Scott Peck in
The Road Less Travelled).
Here is the same principle in operation, but with much higher stakes:
Sometime in the late '70s (I think it was), there was a very sad case in the UK of a 5-year old little girl being mauled to death by two alsatians (German shepherd dogs). The dogs belonged to an experienced police dog-handler. They were friendly, highly-trained and child-friendly creatures. The police officer had decided to keep them at home when he was off-duty. I think the dogs both attacked and killed his little daughter in a short interval when she was quite alone with them whilst any adults were variously outside/upstairs. So nobody quite knew how or what had happened that made the dogs attack her.
At the inquest, the father said he "could have staked his life on the dogs being safe with the child" (OWTTE).
Well, of course, he didn't stake his life on it - he actually effectively staked his little girl's life on it, and she paid with her life for her father's loss of the bet.
The father's act of wanting or believing the dogs to be harmless could not affect or improve the little girl's inevitable statistical odds.
Not so easy for the father to displace responsibility in that case, I think, but it doesn't seem to deter others from getting dangerous dog breeds in their houses, and children/adults paying for it by being being savaged or killed by them. Happens all the time. It was an absurdity then, and it still is.
By the way, writing in what could be a veiled threatening way, of having only just managed to control yourself from venting your anger on someone:
"... and indeed I've kept this post civil by the skin of my teeth in the face of a condescending reply to the situation, rather than a rational discussion of the salient points."
- is a common form of verbal bullying, and I would normally take exception to it. Furthermore, it does nothing to make or substantiate a rational point, so it is not of much use in a rational discussion of the salient points of an argument.
However, if you really are at your wits end, then just go for it - self actualise away and "knock yourself out" as they say. I shall quite understand!
(Sticks and stones shall break my bones...)
I should stress that, though you may have interpreted my comments as condescending, that was not my intention and I am categorically not responsible for any mis-interpretations that other people may place on my comments. Rest assured, I would always be happy to have a rational discussion of the salient points of an argument - if and when I come across one, and especially if I think I may be able to contribute something useful or helpful.
