January 27, 2008
Disagreeing With Michael Shermer Part 2
At one point in the Skepticality interview, Dr. Shermer states that he doesn't think electronic books will ever overtake paper books. He points out that the Kindle isn't there yet "and I don't think it ever will be."
Dr. Shermer doesn't mention if he has ever actually tried a Kindle, so I don't know if he's speaking from experience, but it sounds like he is just speculating. So let me point to Steve Gibson's review of the Kindle for a somewhat different take.
Speaking (well, typing) as someone who owns over 2,000 books, I can't wait until there is a device that will let me hold a good chunk of my library in my hand. Of course, wishing doesn't make it so, but I see several things that make me optimistic.
It looks like the Kindle is much better than its critics (most of whom have never used it) want you to believe. If it were just a little bit cheaper, I'd probably try it out.
But I'm hoping that once the API for the iPhone is opened up for developers, we'll see some sort of iBook app, because I could very easily read a book on my iPhone's screen.
Dr. Shermer talks about not wanting to drag a device onto an airplane. I frankly don't understand his point. I just recently finished reading Vincent Bugliosi's Reclaiming History, and I can state unequivocally that I would much rather have dragged a handheld device around than that 10 pound opus. In fact, it's partly because the book was so heavy, that reading it was sometimes a difficult proposition.
It did build up my biceps, however...
Frankly, Dr. Shermer sounds a little bit like the guy who, on the subject of the recently invented telephone, wrote in the May 26th, 1883 edition of Scientific American:
Despite the fact that recent experiments have demonstrated the possibility of telephoning over long circuits, it is to be doubted if the instrument will be used otherwise than locally. It is too sensitive to induction, to atmospheric electricity and to grounds for circuits exceeding a few miles in length. The experiments have been tried under the best, not under the worst conditions. It is hardly possible for the telegraph business of two large cities to be conducted by telephone by the senders of messages themselves, for 500 wires might not suffice to prevent a block in busy hours and merchants could not and would not wait. To operate telephones as the telegraph is now used would be equally impractical. Even where the instruments as little liable to disorder as the Morse, the greater danger of errors would weigh against them. There is no system of signals as clear as the present Morse code, as interpreted by the sounder. Each letter of a word is given in[and] the ordinarily good operator seldom err[s]or in the record. By telephone, it is the sound of a word and not its vowel and consonants which the operator receives and a mistake can easily happen even out of the best conditions. It is to be doubted too of the repetity [sic] of transmission by telephone, where the message had to be written down at the receiving station would even approximate that of the Morse system. Proper names, scientific terms and phrases in a foreign language etc., would have to carefully spelled out and even then would fall wide of accuracy.Posted by jt at January 27, 2008 02:25 PM