Here's the link without the affiliate code: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1439170916
I think some people get all up in arms about it when larger publications do it, since it throws into question the validity of what they've written if they're trying to make money from referral links. However, the above is clearly someone's personal opinion , and I don't think that it should be scrutinised as if it were deceitful.
Would you also like Dropbox to add disclaimers to all their referral links reminding people that the person who sent them the referral is getting extra space as well?
1) when someone posts a book with an affiliate link and then says its a good book, it really clouds their intentions.
2) the link was obfuscated so you aren't really sure what it points to.
3) some people just won't click on an affiliate link.
By seconding his recommendation and providing a non obfuscated link everyone is better off. His recommendation has atleast been backed up and the user is certain of where the link leads to.
Everyone wins:)
I was first introduced to cancer and the methods used to combat it about 10 years ago via unfortunate circumstances.
It's fascinating stuff with surprising parallels to my work in IT.
If I remember correctly, most of the breast cancer that develops early is fast-spreading, while most of the cancer later in life is slow-spreading. So as you screen younger and younger people, you quickly reach a point where you cause more harm than good. You're only finding more disease you can do nothing about, and the false positive cause tremendous hardships on tens of thousands of women.
I also seem to remember that there's some serious discussion over the idea of categorizing cancer based on where it's first detected or starts. Cancer is much more a cell-based disorder than a location-based one. We may have created this huge categorization and treatment system that describes the problem in an inefficient way.
Good read.