The Atlantic: Ebooks Are an Abomination

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by kandwo

Too bad that the argument for physical paper books was butchered in such a fashion. I think there's much to be said for reading paper books, especially concerning memory (I remember reading some studies proving that people remembered/recalled information read on paper much better than on screens (not e-ink, so could be irrelevant for e-readers)).

I would prefer reading only paper books, but the constraints of real life have me doing pretty much the opposite. There are some significant advantages to ebooks that are hard to ignore.

1. They are free! (Most of my reading is PD and the rest I can get from the library. I refuse to buy ebooks. They are too expensive for me; and I would never buy anything with DRM.)
2. I can carry my whole library in my pocket and switch books whenever I feel like it. (I have a Hisense A5 Pro that I use as my main phone, audio player, book reader, etc.)
3. Foreign language reading. (This is probably the main reason. I read in several languages and the physical books I want are simply not available.)
4. Dictionary. (Definitely helps when reading in other languages. Tap a word, get a definition instantly. I don't mind browsing a dictionary manually, but not having to lug a 2kg dictionary with me for every book I read is a huge plus.)

Many of the PDFs I read would also be nicer on an e-ink screen, if I just had one big enough.

The paper books I read are such that I find at second hand stores. Only titles that are in good condition with fonts and design I like. And I make sure not to buy too many since I move a lot and don't want to carry too many books with me.

Those are good reasons. None of them applies to me personally, however. I don't read public domain or library books. I buy almost all my ebooks (DRM gets removed, of course). I don't carry my ereaders or books around with me (I read only at home). I don't read in foreign languages (except for English).

The main reasons I prefer ebooks are the light weight of eink readers (when compared to paper doorstoppers) and their better ergonomics; the ability to change fonts and formatting; price (local books are expensive and the English-language paper books are expensive to import, second-hand or not); storage space (I live in a small apartment).

[issybird]

Originally Posted by AngryD

One thing I should point out, though, is that what annoys me about the original article is what always annoys me about the buffoons who write for The Atlantic. Who friggin' cares about their opinion?

Obviously you do and quite a lot at that.

Read what you want to read and read it how you want to read it.The dipsh*t who wrote that poorly researched Atlantic article, Ian Bogost, is quick to pretentiously mention all the highbrow artsy-fartsy crap he reads. Bully for him.

Pot, meet kettle. You’re doing exactly what you denigrate the author of the article for doing.

I thought this a poor article because the author denounced ereaders while knowing virtually nothing about them. However, I’ll do him the justice of assuming that he enjoys reading what he reads and that’s why he reads it. Just like you, in fact.

A mild admonition: Please clean up your language. Asterisks are not sufficient sanitization. Thanks.

[AngryD]

Originally Posted by issybird

Obviously you do and quite a lot at that.

Perhaps you misunderstand that caring about the discussion does not mean that I care overmuch about the arrogance of the author whose preliterate article prompted it. I read the article so I could properly respond to the discussion it sparked, not because I care one whit what some puffed up Atlantic septic tank of a human has to say about my choice of media.

Were it not for this discussion I would neither know nor care that the original article exists. Your premise is incorrect, and your statement questioning my integrity is insulting.

Originally Posted by issybird

Pot, meet kettle. You’re doing exactly what you denigrate the author of the article for doing.

You know very little about me, but I will inform you that not only are you absolutely incorrect, but one of my hot buttons is being called a liar or a hypocrite, and you managed to do both without any form of actual evidence of either conclusion in your reply to me.

I cite specific authors and works in my posts, so as to hopefully direct others to works of fiction that I find pleasing and interesting in the hope that they will also find them the same. The original author makes a big deal out of explaining his art history books without citing a specific example or explaining why it would not translate to electronic media. He wants you to know that he reads art history books. I want you to know that The Belgariad is a fantastic work of fiction by David Eddings.

Further, I literally said, and you literally quoted "Bully for him." At no point did I say that he was consuming media incorrectly.

Originally Posted by issybird

A mild admonition: Please clean up your language. Asterisks are not sufficient sanitization. Thanks.

A stronger admonition: My posts have been approved by a moderator through the mod queue, and perhaps you are one or perhaps not, but if you are then this should have been addressed privately. I also find your demeanor insulting and will be utilizing the block feature so as not to further subject myself to it. This will solve any further problems you may have with my language, as well as potential conflicts of personality due to your misunderstandings and erroneous conclusions about me. You're welcome.

[AngryD]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

See Slide 5 here:


This is how I was taught and what I believe. Standard statistical tests assume a near-infinte N to n ratio because anything else would add complexity without real-world significance.
. I just looked for it on the internet and did not find it. Can anyone who went further than I did in statistics quantify this?

It could make a good term paper topic in a liberal artsy statistical methods class. No need to credit me

Not having a background in statistical analysis other than Operational Risk Management, I can't comment on the math involved, but I can point out that the Boolean expressions of the specific questions can have a variance impact on an extrapolated N to n ratio if the answers to those questions are too open to interpretation. For example, did the poll ask "Have you read an eBook in the last year?" or did it as "Have you read a paper book in the last year?" I kind of mentioned this, but not having the math background you do I was unable to express it as an equation. You're way better at that ("more gooder"?) than I am.

Looking at the other slides in that presentation, I don't see anything that really translates my point that how a query is worded can affect the statistical likelihood of certain answers. Can you see what I'm saying?

[issybird]

Originally Posted by AngryD

Perhaps you misunderstand that caring about the discussion does not mean that I care overmuch about the arrogance of the author whose preliterate article prompted it. I read the article so I could properly respond to the discussion it sparked, not because I care one whit what some puffed up Atlantic septic tank of a human has to say about my choice of media.

Were it not for this discussion I would neither know nor care that the original article exists. Your premise is incorrect, and your statement questioning my integrity is insulting.



You know very little about me, but I will inform you that not only are you absolutely incorrect, but one of my hot buttons is being called a liar or a hypocrite, and you managed to do both without any form of actual evidence of either conclusion in your reply to me.

I cite specific authors and works in my posts, so as to hopefully direct others to works of fiction that I find pleasing and interesting in the hope that they will also find them the same. The original author makes a big deal out of explaining his art history books without citing a specific example or explaining why it would not translate to electronic media. He wants you to know that he reads art history books. I want you to know that The Belgariad is a fantastic work of fiction by David Eddings.

Further, I literally said, and you literally quoted "Bully for him." At no point did I say that he was consuming media incorrectly.



A stronger admonition: My posts have been approved by a moderator through the mod queue, and perhaps you are one or perhaps not, but if you are then this should have been addressed privately. I also find your demeanor insulting and will be utilizing the block feature so as not to further subject myself to it. This will solve any further problems you may have with my language, as well as potential conflicts of personality due to your misunderstandings and erroneous conclusions about me. You're welcome.

Don’t discuss moderation in the open forum. Read the guidelines, which reference that as well as language and political posts and discussing one’s ignore list. If you have an issue, report a post or contact a mod privately - that’s on you. Future violations will be deleted without comment and risk further sanction if this becomes a pattern.

For the record: I approved your post.

[crich70]

I imagine when books went from Clay Tablets to Scrolls and thence to Manuscripts (prior to printed books) that there were some people who weren't happy about it. In a sense we've come full circle from a Tablet to a Tablet.

[Renate]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

History titles often include a list of characters. It is harder to pop back and forth to those than with a paper book, where I might use bookmarks.

I thought of this too, for maps, dramatis personae, etc. I thought of (and implemented) "swap". See: https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sh...06#post4133406

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by AngryD

Looking at the other slides in that presentation, I don't see anything that really translates my point that how a query is worded can affect the statistical likelihood of certain answers.

This I agree with. People lie, and how you word it certainly affects what lie they will tell.

For some reason, not only do most people lie about their reading, it isn’t hard to get them to admit it. I just found this:

Most Britons have lied about the books they read

According to the survey, 65 percent of people have pretended to have read books, and of those, 42 percent singled out “1984.” Next on the list came “War and Peace” by Leo Tolstoy and in third place was James Joyce’s “Ulysses.”

The Bible was in fourth position, and newly elected President Barack Obama’s autobiography “Dreams from My Father” came ninth.

Aside from a list of ten titles which respondents were asked to tick or leave blank, many admitted wrongly claiming they had read other “classics” including Jane Austen, the Bronte sisters, Charles Dickens, Fyodor Dostoyevsky and Herman Melville.

Asked why they had lied about reading a book, the main reason was to impress the person they were speaking to.

Whether people are more likely to lie about reading the eBook or a paper copy, I have no idea.

[Uncle Robin]

Originally Posted by crich70

I imagine when books went from Clay Tablets to Scrolls and thence to Manuscripts (prior to printed books) that there were some people who weren't happy about it. In a sense we've come full circle from a Tablet to a Tablet.

Cue Norwegian comedy sketch on YouTube

[Renate]

Well, if you've ever read a book on a Palm Pilot (I have) most any eReader today will be quite a few steps up. Still, that's no excuse why most a lot of the current crop has 10 year old performance. Single core iMX6Solo? Barf. Still, the folks at Google are doing their best* to tamp down performance on your shiny new octo core eReader.

* I don't mean intentionally. It's just that the flood of bells, whistles and gratuitous animations takes its toll.

[crich70]

Originally Posted by Uncle Robin

Cue Norwegian comedy sketch on YouTube

An old favorite

[Quoth]

Originally Posted by crich70

I imagine when books went from Clay Tablets to Scrolls and thence to Manuscripts (prior to printed books) that there were some people who weren't happy about it. In a sense we've come full circle from a Tablet to a Tablet.

Codex means book. Books are essentially like the old tablets, but on papyrus, paper (rag, wood or a mix) or animal skin. Books are over 2000 years old. Compared with scrolls they offer random access, quicker access, easier to read, and twice the capacity per media. I never understood why CRTs and 30 years later Web "pages" were not mostly page orientated and copied the scrolling behaviour of the printing terminal, based on the 1928 teletype invention. For 30 years the continuous paper was used on computer printers rather than cut sheets. Cut sheets and even duplex printing was starting to be be popular about the time Websites were added to the Internet (about 1992) and also page orientated desktop publishing was affordable from the late 1980s.

Web sites and browsers should work like ebooks. After all, they are CSS and HTML with resources such as images, index and fonts.
Perhaps over 10,000 not read in the modern era that are in museums.
Much papyrus was used to light fires. Paper writing deliberately burnt in ancient China. The animal skins later used in Europe kept well. Paper didn't.

[Pajamaman]

Originally Posted by issybird

Obviously you do and quite a lot at that.



Pot, meet kettle. You’re doing exactly what you denigrate the author of the article for doing.

I thought this a poor article because the author denounced ereaders while knowing virtually nothing about them. However, I’ll do him the justice of assuming that he enjoys reading what he reads and that’s why he reads it. Just like you, in fact.

A mild admonition: Please clean up your language. Asterisks are not sufficient sanitization. Thanks.

No judgement there.

[Sarmat89]

Originally Posted by Quoth

I never understood why CRTs and 30 years later Web "pages" were not mostly page orientated and copied the scrolling behaviour of the printing terminal, based on the 1928 teletype invention.

Because most people like an opportunity to repaginate the material at will, to fit a paragraph or a figure on one screen.

[crich70]

Originally Posted by Quoth

Codex means book. Books are essentially like the old tablets, but on papyrus, paper (rag, wood or a mix) or animal skin. Books are over 2000 years old. Compared with scrolls they offer random access, quicker access, easier to read, and twice the capacity per media. I never understood why CRTs and 30 years later Web "pages" were not mostly page orientated and copied the scrolling behaviour of the printing terminal, based on the 1928 teletype invention. For 30 years the continuous paper was used on computer printers rather than cut sheets. Cut sheets and even duplex printing was starting to be be popular about the time Websites were added to the Internet (about 1992) and also page orientated desktop publishing was affordable from the late 1980s.

Web sites and browsers should work like ebooks. After all, they are CSS and HTML with resources such as images, index and fonts.
Perhaps over 10,000 not read in the modern era that are in museums.
Much papyrus was used to light fires. Paper writing deliberately burnt in ancient China. The animal skins later used in Europe kept well. Paper didn't.

Definition of Manuscript:a book, document, or piece of music written by hand rather than typed or printed. That was the context in which I referred to manuscripts. Many old books that were hand copied onto parchment are often referred to as manuscripts. Now days of course it's most often used to describe an unpublished work. Or so it seems. The web and ebooks have allowed more people to have access to printed material than ever before. I certainly can't see that as bad. And sometimes (though not always) the ebook version is far cheaper in price as well as being easier to secure a copy of.