Slashdot Mirror


Neil Gaiman On Why Libraries Are the Gates to the Future

Neil Gaiman spoke Monday for the Reading Agency's annual lecture series. His talk centered on the importance of libraries and of reading for pleasure. His talk was transcribed and posted by The Guardian. Quoting: "Fiction has two uses. Firstly, it's a gateway drug to reading. The drive to know what happens next, to want to turn the page, the need to keep going, even if it's hard, because someone's in trouble and you have to know how it's all going to end that's a very real drive. And it forces you to learn new words, to think new thoughts, to keep going. To discover that reading per se is pleasurable. Once you learn that, you're on the road to reading everything. And reading is key. ... The simplest way to make sure that we raise literate children is to teach them to read, and to show them that reading is a pleasurable activity. And that means, at its simplest, finding books that they enjoy, giving them access to those books, and letting them read them. I don't think there is such a thing as a bad book for children. Every now and again it becomes fashionable among some adults to point at a subset of children's books, a genre, perhaps, or an author, and to declare them bad books, books that children should be stopped from reading. ... It's tosh. It's snobbery and it's foolishness. There are no bad authors for children, that children like and want to read and seek out, because every child is different. They can find the stories they need to, and they bring themselves to stories. A hackneyed, worn-out idea isn't hackneyed and worn out to them. This is the first time the child has encountered it. Do not discourage children from reading because you feel they are reading the wrong thing. Fiction you do not like is a route to other books you may prefer. And not everyone has the same taste as you."

149 comments

  1. Why Slashdot is the Gate to the Future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nuff said.

  2. Books perhaps... by Karmashock · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Traditional libraries are not the future. The dead tree archives will here after be a curiosity.

    That said, repositories of books and stories etc will remain very important. They will however be increasingly a digital experience.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    1. Re:Books perhaps... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Library - A large building filled with layered paper. Believed to be an early attempt at carbon sequestration, these papers were covered with words, perhaps in an attempt to discourage people from burning them and thus releasing the carbon.

    2. Re:Books perhaps... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The dead tree archives will here after be a curiosity.

      Sure, this will happen right after the paperless office.

    3. Re:Books perhaps... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      The average life span of a hard drive is 5 years. This is not even to mention format incompatibilities. A paper book on acid-free paper has a life span in the hundreds of years. Paper is clearly the superior archival instrument.

    4. Re:Books perhaps... by MacTO · · Score: 2

      Physical libraries are going to exist for a very long time.

      As things stand today, there are too many books that are not available electronically or that are not available to libraries electronically.

      As things stand today, libraries are more than a repository of books: they provide programs for everyone from toddlers to seniors.

      There are many advantages to electronic publications, but it is important to realize that there is a long way to go before those dead tree repositories disappear.

    5. Re:Books perhaps... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RTFA.

      I worry that here in the 21st century people misunderstand what libraries are and the purpose of them. If you perceive a library as a shelf of books, it may seem antiquated or outdated in a world in which most, but not all, books in print exist digitally. But that is to miss the point fundamentally.

    6. Re:Books perhaps... by Gr8Apes · · Score: 3, Insightful

      While digital formats certainly beat books for a whole host of reasons, pleasure reading is not among them. There's something about sitting down with a book that just doesn't work as well with a digital device, at least not yet. Same with a newspaper - I get more info in 10s with a newspaper than I do on a news website. I can scan the much larger format much faster and focus on what interests me vs having to click multiple links on news websites. I've actually considered going back to getting a paper, it's still up in the air.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    7. Re:Books perhaps... by danbuter · · Score: 1

      Until someone dumps a nuke in our atmosphere and wipes out most of the servers. Then paper books are going to be very, very important.

    8. Re:Books perhaps... by intermodal · · Score: 1

      Traditional libraries have been, until the PATRIOT Act, fairly anonymous as far as surveillance is concerned. That was one of the advantages of them until recently. Now they are only anonymous if you hide your face from any cameras and read the whole book without checking it out.

      --
      In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
    9. Re:Books perhaps... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because a nuke in the atmosphere won't affect libraries too?

    10. Re:Books perhaps... by Cryacin · · Score: 2

      Actually, I just finished a contract with a large financial corporation, and they don't have a single printer, nor a stationery cupboard in the skyscraper except for the receipt printer in the cafe.

      --
      Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
    11. Re:Books perhaps... by internerdj · · Score: 1

      I didn't really get the vinyl album folks until this very moment.

    12. Re:Books perhaps... by happy_place · · Score: 1

      I still use our local library, though I'm a huge fan of ebooks. There are certain books I don't want to purchase, but can access via library or interlibrary loans, that make accessing the books more feasible. I take my kids there and they have a chance to just look through the shelves and find something they would not normally take home and read on their own. One daughter started reading a series I'd never heard of lately because she was attracted to the covers of some of the later books in the series, we had to place a hold on the first book which wasn't in this branch of our library, then as she started reading, she was a little perturbed by some of the content which she shared with the whole family, reading aloud passages that she thought were a bit gory--though I could tell she was secretly delighted by... This same daughter was a very slow to take to reading and required special reading assistance in grade school when younger, and not til she read the Harry Potter series did she really enjoy it. Now she's in High School and is absolutely thrilled to be reading "classics" like "The Crucible" while the rest of her class are dreading it.

      I also like how you only get the book for a couple weeks at a time. To me, it's motivating to read the book or move on... you have to choose to actually pursue the book. You don't collect a hundred of them on your edevice and never finish them...

      The nicest thing about a trip to the library is how much I pay to go... I do worry that even with cheaper books to access, the whole "free to read" concept is jeopardized by our need to affix a pricetag to everything.

      --
      http://www.beanleafpress.com
    13. Re:Books perhaps... by alexander_686 · · Score: 1

      Depends on the library.

      For example my local library will gladly hand over all of their records to the policy when asked. They also destroy all of their records the instant they don’t need them anymore. So beyond what you currently have checked out there is not much for them to turn over.

    14. Re:Books perhaps... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Traditional libraries are not the future. The dead tree archives will here after be a curiosity.

      That said, repositories of books and stories etc will remain very important. They will however be increasingly a digital experience.

      Having worked in IT and libraries my entire life I can tell you, for a fact, that I have never had to explain to anyone how to use a book. On the other hand I do and will continue to explain to several people how to use headphones, watch a DVD, use a word processor, send an email, print, and a whole host of other dead simple technological tasks every single day. These tasks are still absolute voodoo to many people, never mind accessing eBooks, streaming media and researching databases. Our digital/electronic collection is several orders of magnitude larger than our physical collection, which is the case in most college libraries. Most users still prefer books though and have no interest in being bothered with the complexities of technology.

    15. Re:Books perhaps... by intermodal · · Score: 1

      You are correct that it varies from library to library. It's just hard to know what each library does. I haven't physically checked out a book in a long time, but only because I have such a stack of books that I own at present and haven't read yet.

      --
      In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
    16. Re:Books perhaps... by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Books age and must be replaced.

      To sustain their collection, libraries must acquire fresh copies as their existing inventory reaches its end of life. The correct policy in this matter would be to replace books with a digital copy either provided by the publisher or recorded from the expiring edition.

      The wrong policy would be to buy yet another paper book.

      The existing system is neither economical nor rational in the current environment. Prior to ebooks people went to these institutions to get information. Mostly reference and research as well as inexpensive recreational material. They are no longer the primary source for this information. People instead task the internet which means that they're sort of going the way of Blockbuster Video.

      I've seen a lot of people in here say "but I love the library"... and some people love blockbuster video. It. Does. Not. Matter.

      These institutions are expensive and were totally reasonable when they were vital and used. Today they're neither.

      The compromise is to transitioning their inventory to digital copies which radically lowers their cost. What is more, it makes their collection available to more users since most users will increasingly want a digital copy in the first place. Set this up properly and small towns can get access to major metropolitan research at the touch of a button. This is in everyone's interest.

      Obviously we can keep a few large libraries running. Universities, some of the larger branches. But the small town branch? Keep a section for used paper backs, a few racks of reference books, possibly some local paper records of local trivia... and digitize the rest.

      Its that or die. Choose. This or death. And that isn't me threatening the death. That's irrelevance gripping its icy indifferent hands around the issue. You can respect it or it will kill them.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    17. Re:Books perhaps... by SirGarlon · · Score: 1

      Traditional libraries are not the future. The dead tree archives will here after be a curiosity.

      The first sentence has the look of a self-fulfilling prophecy. I predict an irreversible downward spiral that goes like this: privileged, middle-class people declare libraries irrelevant because they can get books more conveniently online. Then, they stop going to the libraries. Then, they fail to realize how many books are in the library that aren't discoverable or obtainable online. Then, they vote to de-fund the public library because they don't need it -- and they no longer cross paths with the people who do. Then, a community center and promoter of lifelong learning is gone forever, as the library building gets converted to luxury condos.

      All because a bunch of digital snobs are too cool to go borrow a physical book.

      --
      [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
    18. Re:Books perhaps... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suppose you could ask what their document retention policy is, but that might interfere with your prejudice. Libraries and Librarians are, believe it or not, pretty rabid about unfettered access to information for all people.

    19. Re:Books perhaps... by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      Same here. The library records are deleted as soon as the book/DVD/CD is safely returned to ensure they can't be forced to hand over historical records.

      If only companies would do the same...

    20. Re:Books perhaps... by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      Because a nuke in the atmosphere won't affect libraries too?

      EMP doesn't wipe ink off paper. Otherwise we'd just reuse it after blasting it with radio waves.

    21. Re:Books perhaps... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I didn't really get the vinyl album folks until this very moment.

      News flash: you still don't. Books retain their "fidelity", regardless of their format. CDs and high-bitrate MP3s have much higher fidelity than vinyl. "Vinyl sounds better" is generally just a pathetic attempt by certain people trying to feel better by sounding elitist. See also "Audiophile" magazine.

    22. Re:Books perhaps... by Yomers · · Score: 1

      There's something about sitting down with a book that just doesn't work as well with a digital device, at least not yet.

      Try kindle or other reader with e-inc screen. If you still prefer old style books - that is probably because you used to it, in less than 100 years paper books will be no more than curiosity, like scrolls or stone tablets with inscribed symbols. There is certainly something about sitting with stone tablet that just does not work as well with the books, but stone tablets, paper books or books on a digital devices are essentially the same - information in human readable form. Digital reader is more convenient than a paper book, same as paper book is more convenient than a stone table - information density is higher, reproduction cost is lower (practically zero for digital devices). But newer formats are less sturdy - it's not easy to destroy stone tablet, paper books burn and rot, digital devices are even more fragile. So use stone or metal tablets if your want your message to be read in couple thousands years, digital reader for everyday reading.

      Always yours, Captain Obvious

    23. Re:Books perhaps... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's talking about EMP, buttmunch, which doesn't affect paper.

    24. Re:Books perhaps... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Choose. This or death. And that isn't me threatening the death. That's irrelevance gripping its icy indifferent hands around the issue. You can respect it or it will kill them.

      This might be true (a very highly qualified "might") if the printed word were the only service the modern library offers. However, it's not. I won't waste my time running down a list of those services, but it seems clear that you have either not used a public library in quite some time or choose to ignore the large selection of services on offer. Hint: internet access, rural, and low-income patrons.

    25. Re:Books perhaps... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All because a bunch of digital snobs are too cool to go borrow a physical book.

      You're the one being a snob. The solution isn't to change everyone so that they unnecessarily, inconveniently, and expensively obtain a physical book. The solution, in my opinion, is to make sure that digital copies of all books are available to all people. That isn't what tends to happen in online "stores", since they have a profit motive to push a small subset of the available titles. I would like to see a digital library, funded by taxes, that has every public domain book in an easy to access, text format (minimal open formatting ok, but not a proprietary format). That would be awesome.

    26. Re:Books perhaps... by SirGarlon · · Score: 1

      The solution, in my opinion, is to make sure that digital copies of all books are available to all people.

      That would indeed be awesome, but the barriers to achieving that are formidable. First, you'd have to eliminate copyright. Second, you'd have provide universal broadband access and a device for everyone. If you're suggesting that libraries should stay open until those goals are achieved, then we're in full agreement.

      --
      [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
    27. Re:Books perhaps... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well fine, we can just agree to agree, then. Sorry for calling you a snob.
      I don't think we'd have to eliminate all copyright, by the way, making something available doesn't mean that it would then be legal to copy it. I would like to see authors retain whatever rights we as a society can agree on (tricky, I know). I hope that authors specifically, and content creators generally, can make a living by producing creative works. The libraries might license the works, for example. Who knows, maybe government would even fund the arts - one can dream. :)

    28. Re:Books perhaps... by cellocgw · · Score: 2

      I think your comparison is flawed. If you were reading a paper book hundreds of times a day (to say nothing of deleting and rewriting the pages), it would wear out far sooner than the hard drive.
      If you take a hard drive, write once, and place in a nice environmentally compatible locker, then read parts of it every few months, it'll last a longer time.

      --
      https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
    29. Re:Books perhaps... by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I agree, libraries are great. Judging from the one I use, they are still popular and therefore won't go away. Most of them are City-owned, and so as long as local voters value them, they are safe.

      The libraries do buy the books, so the need to affix price tags isn't really violated.

      As for this whole topic, while I agree that it is silly to list an author as to be avoided, the idea that content doesn't matter as long as the kid is reading is insane. The whole premise is awful. To grab at an extreme case, should children be allowed to read books by pedophiles that claim that they want the children to be "free" and that children having sex with adults will "liberate" them? I say content does matter. (these books do exist, but children generally don't encounter them because they are kept out of libraries and mainstream book stores)

      While the books actually on those lists are usually just fine for children, the claim that content doesn't matter doesn't hold up.

    30. Re: Books perhaps... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except for the backup ...

    31. Re:Books perhaps... by SirGarlon · · Score: 1

      I don't think we'd have to eliminate all copyright, by the way, making something available doesn't mean that it would then be legal to copy it.

      You're right, it would be more correct to say a massive reform of copyright would be needed, not its complete elimination.

      But this brings me back to the sticky wicket of "everyone needs a device." Specifically, everyone needs a device that can read all the books in the digital (inter)national library. That is, all the digital formats. Present and future. Forever. For free, or close enough to free as makes no practical difference to a homeless person.

      This, to me, seems like a big technical hurdle. When people speak of the convenience of e-books, they seem to mean convenience only for themselves, on their current device, of their current reading interests. (This is why I used the word "snob," which was probably a regrettable choice.) On larger time scales and looking at more diverse collections of people and books, I think paper books are FAR more convenient and less susceptible to being banned/burned by short-sighted minority interests.

      --
      [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
    32. Re:Books perhaps... by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      We can measure this by going to the local library and looking around; do people who can afford to buy ebooks still go there? Yes. *whew*

      I don't think the people with the sort of psychological profile you describe were at the library in the first place. They could already go to the book store, and be treated like a very important person. They voted against funding the library in the first place! My city has a wonderful library, a little over 10 years old. It took a few votes to pass it, and in the end we squeaked it through with under 51%. Now that it is built, it is wildly popular, and has no trouble getting funding; it passes with over 65% support.

      And even with ebooks, the library buys copies and uses technology to "check them out" for free! Sure, I could hack my phone and make a copy, but why bother? If a few people do that, it is no big deal. The library is buying the same number of copies either way. So far, the library is most of the reason I even read ebooks that cost money! Same goes for magazines. I don't buy any, but I do read (on a tablet) ones that my library buys.

    33. Re:Books perhaps... by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 2

      I'm hoping you're not making an entirely serious point here. Digital storage has many advantages, including copies of perfect fidelity, ease of duplication and transfer that is completely unbeatable, as well as a terrifically convenient method of searching and storing.

      --
      You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
    34. Re:Books perhaps... by Ichijo · · Score: 1

      Traditional libraries are not the future. The dead tree archives will here after be a curiosity.

      That's partially true. Libraries as they exist today as nothing more than regional warehouses for books (and more recently DVDs and CDs and Internet access) are not the future. The future will rely more heavily on the inter-library loan system in order to allow libraries to be smaller and more local as RedBox is to Blockbuster. Books take up a lot of room, they don't all need to be stored in our communities where real estate is expensive when they can sit in warehouses wherever real estate is cheap as Amazon does with its inventory.

      Libraries need not be just for books, either. They can be seed banks, they can loan hand tools, baking pans, fishing poles, telescopes, knitting needles, microscopes, oscilloscopes, musical instruments, and even puppies. Why not also reserve a couple of parking spaces for carsharing?

      So there are plenty of ways libraries can continue to be relevant and cost-effective if we'll just open our minds to new uses for them.

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    35. Re:Books perhaps... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      umm then their billing and legal offices are some where else. because both of those REQUIRE mountains of printing to be done.

    36. Re:Books perhaps... by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Sure, this will happen right after the paperless office.

      The paperless office concept failed in general because it is still much easier to move a single piece of paper with important information around than it is to do it completely digitally. A physical piece of paper can sit on your desk as a constant visible and physical reminder that you need to deal with it. It takes up space, the boss sees it when he walks by. You can't just drop it into your email inbox and forget about it.

      Digital libraries will succeed over dead-tree ones for at least one reason: dead tree books are less convenient than digital ones. Physical weight, consumable resources, cost of copying, susceptibility to mold/mildew/water/fire/small children ripping pages out. Digital libraries allow children in places where books are a rarity access to the world. One computer in a village can go anywhere in the world to get a book from a digital library, and that child may never go more than ten miles from where he was born in his lifetime. A dead-tree library eleven miles away is useless to him.

      The summary makes the statement that there are no bad books for children. I disagree. Were the issue of "bad books for children" just "bad books" in general (bad authors), then yeah. But "bad books for children" also mean complex subjects that children don't have the capacity to grasp (a discussion of the FED and worldwide monetary policy, when the child still thinks money is "allowance", e.g.). Or concepts that we don't want children to grasp ("Daddy and sister went to the lake by the cabin for their special time together..."). Those may not be "bad books" per se, but bad books for children nonetheless.

    37. Re:Books perhaps... by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      As things stand today, libraries are more than a repository of books: they provide programs for everyone from toddlers to seniors.

      Yes, many public libraries have extended their useful lives based not on the books they house but on the social programs they host. They have public meeting rooms used by a large number of groups, and those groups aren't all "book clubs".

    38. Re:Books perhaps... by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      There's something about sitting down with a book that just doesn't work as well with a digital device, at least not yet.

      It isn't the device, it is your familiarity and comfort with it.

      Pocketwatches lost the battle even though they could be more easily read when a generation got used to the wristwatch. Wristwatches are currently losing their battle, despite being really convenient to look at quickly and having batteries that last for a year or more without maintenance, to the cell phone that has the time displayed on the front. A cell phone has to be pulled out of a pocket to look at, a button or two pressed, and their batteries need repeated recharging on a regular nearly daily basis. You can't "butt dial" your BFF when you sit on your wristwatch, either. Wristwatches are clearly superior devices.

      I wear one because I grew up wearing one and I'm more comfortable looking at my wrist to see what time it is than pulling the new-fangled phone out of my pocket. You read dead-paper books for fun because you grew up reading dead-paper books for fun and haven't grown up having more books that you could read in your lifetime available online for free on your ebook reader.

      My first Sony reader came with my selection of 100 free classics. If I could manage two books a week, it would take a year to read them all. Then I could get another 1000 for free from a lot of places (MobiRead is one of my favorites.) That's 9 years more at two a week. Project Gutenberg has an uncountable (in the sense of "one, two, three, infinity") number of free books, including the entire series of Tom Swift (just one example.)

      Your children pick up computers more easily than you, on average, because they have grown up with them. They'll pick up on ebooks that way, too.

    39. Re:Books perhaps... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You left out that digital has a higher bar to entry. As you not only need to know how to read. You now have get the device, know how to use it, and deal with the limits in the device(power, drm) as well as on the content. There's also the various forms of hidden and not-so-hidden tracking and privacy violating options with digital. A book you pick up off the shelf and you're off and running with few direct or indirect limitations(static content?).

    40. Re:Books perhaps... by Prune · · Score: 1

      >I can scan the much larger format much faster and focus on what interests me vs having to click multiple links on news websites.

      Yes! You nailed it. Same with the comment on pleasure reading.

      --
      "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
    41. Re:Books perhaps... by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      I haven't physically checked out a book in a long time, but only because I have such a stack of books that I own at present and haven't read yet.

      Partly the same here, and partly that the library doesn't have the same taste in books I do. I've made suggestions for books that they should obtain and nothing ever happens.

      I have used them for online books. This feature is very nice. And yet, when I suggest ebooks I'd like to see them get, I get no response back at all. The "Overdrive" library software has a limit of two recommendations, as well. That's moronic, but I guess the librarians feel they'd have to deal with too many recommendations if they let every patron suggest as many books as they'd like to see the library get.

    42. Re:Books perhaps... by mcspoo · · Score: 1

      Your mistake here is assuming that libraries do not evolve and are all about books.

      Been to your local library lately? You'll find it filled with much much more than books. Meeting rooms for public events. Study rooms for single or group study. Free public wireless for your wireless enabled equipment. Computers for those who don't have them at home. DVD's and BluRays for entertainment. Art for the masses. Databases for in library or remote access, including utilities to learn a new language, or get help with your homework. Video Games in a variety of platforms. Movie nights and zombie lock ins. Classes on Informational Literacy in the Digital Age. Full of vibrant people, and fantastic energy for folks of ALL ages.

      Libraries are much MUCH more than just books. They're a community gathering place staffed by exciting professionals who's sole goal is to ensure your access to information, literacy, entertainment, history, and so very much more.

    43. Re:Books perhaps... by lgw · · Score: 1

      it seems clear that you have either not used a public library in quite some time or choose to ignore the large selection of services on offer. Hint: internet access, rural, and low-income patrons.

      All of which can be offered at far lower cost without the stacks of paper books. Libraries can still thrive, but the "paper book archive" service has gone from core to legacy and is a significant cost.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    44. Re:Books perhaps... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      only Electric paper, so say goodbye to e-ink

    45. Re:Books perhaps... by intermodal · · Score: 1

      Perhaps, but if they let people request things willy-nilly, they could at least figure out which ones were most requested as opposed to what was in people's top two. My wife uses Overdrive all the time, but I haven't tried it.

      --
      In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
    46. Re:Books perhaps... by u38cg · · Score: 1

      The paperless office is here. You just have to have management with enough balls to really unplug all the printers.

      --
      [FUCK BETA]
    47. Re:Books perhaps... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope, even though MP3 is close to CD quality, it is a lossy compression scheme, meaning that if you have a good system and you play side by side an MP3 and a CD you can hear a slight difference. Unlike say FLAC Vs. CD where you have the same. Now the reason Audiophiles prefer Vinyl over other formats is because of the richer warmer sound that vinyl produces. Analog does not produce the sharp sawtooth patter that digital does, so there are imperfections and quirks that cause the vinyl recording to feel warmer. That being said with bad needles and bad turntable you can ruin vinyl and speed up the decay, but with proper care and maintnance Vinyl will play on and on.

      The same can be said about books analog vs. digital, there is a smell and a feel that books provide that digital just cannot. additionally e-books can and are susceptible to phantom editing, where a book run that includes typos can increase in value if caught early and only a few were sold. you also have to take in the edition run of books, First editions are always valued higher then any other run (think comics). in the end it comes down to what you prefer, and if you want someone to be able to magically edit your copy without you knowing.

      Last piece here, Books can be repaired. Libraries employe people to do just that. data transmission is susceptible to signal decay and data loss the more you transfer. once a file is corrupted it is much harder to get back to the original.

    48. Re:Books perhaps... by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      I didn't say the institution would go away or that they'd not exist. I said they need to take their inventory digital.

      Keep the building. Keep the staff. Get rid of the books. Do all the things you're talking about but more so.

      The only books that should be kept are donated books that members give to the library and a few very general reference tomes... And yes some local archival material such as the minutes to the local city council or whatever. Everything else... digital.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    49. Re:Books perhaps... by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      That's fine. I don't have a problem with them existing. My issue is with them maintaining large numbers of paper books. That's fine if you're a university or a major metropolitan branch. But for the vast majority of branches it is no longer sustainable or practical or even useful.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    50. Re: Books perhaps... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As long as you remove DRM, then Ebooks win over dead tree books.
      With DRM, it's like a book with a chain on the cover and the pages glued together.

    51. Re: Books perhaps... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But the rural library does not need books, it needs access to the repository and readers to loan out.

    52. Re: Books perhaps... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The central libraries could change to information preservation by pressing digital info into metal or non corroding material, but the general copies for use would still be in what ever storage system is used for that time. Can always be recopied from the physical masters. Mini ITX H61Motherboard

    53. Re: Books perhaps... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some people prefer riding horses, but still transport the horses around in car pulled trailers, and go to school or work by car/bus/train

    54. Re: Books perhaps... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Libraries need to be able to buy Ebooks on a pay per read basis. Most public libraries are funded by rates or local taxes. From this they know their population, how much usage they get, and how much each user. Oats them. Then they need to allow borrowing a certain number of Ebooks a month, with the full catalog available, and then don't try to enforce only one copy on loan at a time bullshit. User borrows a book, that's one impression, pay the distributer of the book. The end. Streaming music is making this work, only the publishers are stopping this work for books too.

    55. Re:Books perhaps... by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      You can already get most books on your kindle THROUGH your library. You enter your library card ID into amazon and you can get access to thousands of books for free. Works the same way as a normal library. You can only have X books at a time and you can only have them checked out for Y days. Same basic principle.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    56. Re:Books perhaps... by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Legal only requires the paper because the rules on maintaining electronic records are unreasonable. So many legal institutions tend to go pure paper. I've seen a few that won't use email and instead communicate by fax. Only way to protect their clients. The rules are different. And its in their client's interests often for records to sunset after a couple years.

      As to accounting... try a major corporation. Its all electronic. You can print out what you like but the accounting firms that audit the books are not going through paper.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    57. Re:Books perhaps... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol, kneel gay man.

    58. Re:Books perhaps... by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      There's something about sitting down with a book that just doesn't work as well with a digital device, at least not yet.

      Try kindle or other reader with e-inc screen.

      I have and can read on one just fine. In some ways it's better than a book for pleasure reading, in others, it's not. I'll give you an example: you can't rapidly flip through an e-book looking for that one particular section, you know roughly where on the page it is an kind of what it looks like, but not the exact wording. (ie, search is going to take longer because you're going to have to evaluate every single one to see if it's the right section) This is especially true for those with near photographic memories. Also, pleasure reading is usually 1 book at a time, so an e-reader's ability to carry 100s is irrelevant for most time spans spent reading. It is better if you're going on a long trip with lots of down time, for example. In the living room, this generally doesn't matter.

      If you still prefer old style books - that is probably because you used to it, in less than 100 years paper books will be no more than curiosity, like scrolls or stone tablets with inscribed symbols. There is certainly something about sitting with stone tablet that just does not work as well with the books, ...

      Nice extension of my statement. However, I still hold that a newspaper has a better format for skimming the news and getting more out of it than a news website. The latter is more suitable for the most recent news, the most popular, the most.... whatever.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    59. Re:Books perhaps... by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      It isn't the device, it is your familiarity and comfort with it.

      Why do you assume that? Regarding wristwatches, they're losing out because how often do you really need to know the time? People stopped wearing them because they're redundant. I found myself already knowing the time from the last look at my cell, and never consulted my watch anymore. I think you have to be neurotic or a timekeeper to need to keep an eye on the time to that extent.

      My first Sony reader came with my selection of 100 free classics. If I could manage two books a week, it would take a year to read them all. Then I could get another 1000 for free from a lot of places

      My local library has 10s of thousands of books, for free, including recent offerings. I can only read 1 book at a time, same as you. What good does it do me to have 100 in my hands at a time? It's irrelevant when pleasure reading

      For travel or reference books, it's a different story, then the clear win is for the e-device.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    60. Re:Books perhaps... by bitterblackale · · Score: 1

      "Traditional libraries are not the future. The dead tree archives will here after be a curiosity." I don't think there is evidence for this; it assumes nothing catastrophic could happen to the internet. I like ePubs as much as anyone, but it's an unstable medium; is possible that books published only as ebooks will be unreadable in 50 years due to data corruption and changes in popular file formats. Furthermore, there is currently no storage medium that is expected to be reliable after a few decades. Physical books and film are the longest-term archival mediums we have. Finally - Libraries are the best places to meet smart girls. Your argument is invalid.

    61. Re:Books perhaps... by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Regarding wristwatches, they're losing out because how often do you really need to know the time?

      All the time. I have places I need to be at a specific time. I also like to know exactly how much time I've wasted posting to /.

      People stopped wearing them because they're redundant. I found myself already knowing the time from the last look at my cell,

      Isn't that exactly what I said? They're losing their battle to the cellphone which has the time displayed on it's face. Not because the cellphone is more convenient to find out the time from, but because they're more used to doing it that way.

      As for me, I know the time I last looked at my cell, but that doesn't tell me what time it is now. "Gosh, I missed my meeting with the Dean because I last looked at my cellphone at 8:32 when I pulled it off the charger and put it in my pocket, and it can't be 11AM yet because my cell said it was 8:32."

      So, I can figure out what time it is now in one of several ways, in order of decreasing convenience. 1. Look up at the corner of my screen to see the clock there. 2. Look up above my screen to see the clock radio there. 3. Turn my wrist slightly and look down at my watch. 4. Take my hands away from the keyboard, reach into my pocket, pull out my cellphone, flip it rightside up (since it always seems to come out upside down), press the 1/0 button on the top so it wakes up, and then see the time. Option 3 is easiest overall because it always works. I can be in any meeting and manage a quick glance at my watch without anyone noticing. Option 4 is the hardest. It is an obvious action that shows everyone in the room that I'm considering how much time of mine they are wasting. Sometimes that's not a good thing to let them know.

      I think you have to be neurotic or a timekeeper to need to keep an eye on the time to that extent.

      Or just someone whose next "appointment" isn't Mom calling down the basement stairs that dinner is ready and stop playing on the computer and go wash your hands.

      My local library has 10s of thousands of books, for free, including recent offerings.

      That's nice. So does mine. Of course, I have to actually go there, find the one I want (hope it isn't checked out already), wait in line to check it out, and then carry it around for a week while I read it. If I don't get it done, well, too bad, I have to carry it back to the library to turn it back in, or maybe they'll let me check it out for another week. Compare that to "turn on reader, continue reading".

      And then, how convenient is the library book when you realize "this guy writes crap" or even "this is really boring", and you want to move on to another book. You're stuck taking it back whether you liked it or not and then getting another one that may turn out the same way. My reader has never taken more than a few seconds to close a boring book and let me pick something else.

      And if I want those current books, my library offers them in electronic form, too. Some of those books have joined the 100 free ones on my reader. Almost the same convenience, so almost the same result.

      What good does it do me to have 100 in my hands at a time? It's irrelevant when pleasure reading

      Hardly irrelevant. Having it with you so you can read it anywhere you are and not thinking "gee, if I had brought that dead-tree book with me I could be finding out the next plot twist...". And then, when you get to the last page you can immediately move on to the next book. Convenient. Making things inconvenient tends to reduce pleasure, I've found.

      I have, and will always keep, a paper subscription to a sci fi magazine. At one point, prior to e-versions, I was a year and a half behind. I'd put the latest copy on the shelf when it arrived so I would know where it is, and then never carry one with me. If I did, I'd lose it or it would get damaged and I'

    62. Re:Books perhaps... by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      Regarding wristwatches, they're losing out because how often do you really need to know the time?

      All the time. I have places I need to be at a specific time. I also like to know exactly how much time I've wasted posting to /.

      I generally already know what time it is when I leave for a place, so I really don't bother looking at the clock while I'm on my way there. It won't help me get there faster, and may cause an accident. I also use alarms (on the phone) for things I can't miss. Most of this happens automatically via calendar events done via my computer(s). My watch can't match this functionality.

      People stopped wearing them because they're redundant. I found myself already knowing the time from the last look at my cell,

      Isn't that exactly what I said? They're losing their battle to the cellphone which has the time displayed on it's face.

      No, what you said was:

      because they're more used to doing it that way.

      I disagree, it's because they found out they were already aware of the time and they didn't need to check their watch. Hardly ever. A watch is one more thing to carry, to deal with, and manage and maintain. The trouble wasn't worth it as they wore out. I have a couple of nice watches left. Each will cost almost as much as my phone to service. I have already donated the rest.

      ...I can be in any meeting and manage a quick glance at my watch without anyone noticing. Option 4 is the hardest. It is an obvious action that shows everyone in the room that I'm considering how much time of mine they are wasting. Sometimes that's not a good thing to let them know.

      I'm not sure why you care. What's your obsession with time? Will it help the meeting pass faster, get you out earlier, by knowing the time? If you're going to leave anyways, nothing says "you're wasting my time" like getting up in the middle of a meeting and leaving without giving a reason. If you're going to give a reason and leave, then it doesn't matter whether you check your phone or not.

      Of course, I have to actually go there, find the one I want (hope it isn't checked out already), wait in line to check it out, and then carry it around for a week while I read it. If I don't get it done, well, too bad, I have to carry it back to the library to turn it back in, or maybe they'll let me check it out for another week.

      They do have these wonderful things called websites, where you can search for a book, reserve or hold it, extend your checkout time, and even read reviews about it and see how it compares with other authors you may like. Maybe you should try it out sometime, it's almost like shopping for an e-book.

      I don't cart around "pleasure" reading. I generally don't have time for it while I'm out.

      And then, when you get to the last page you can immediately move on to the next book. Convenient. Making things inconvenient tends to reduce pleasure, I've found.

      It's going to be interesting what you think when you actually start working.

      I have, and will always keep, a paper subscription ... never carry one with me... I'd lose it or it would get damaged and I'd be out a magazine. Once I started getting ePub versions, I got caught up really quick.

      Hmm - seems you're collecting. That is at odds with reading, where things might get bent or used.

      Wow. Our worlds are so opposite. For technical books, the clear winner is paper. Random access is so much faster using paper, and the resolution of the printed page is so much better. I can see an entire schematic of something on one page. I can stick my finger in the section I'm reading now and flip to something else to clarify a point so much easier with paper. Then just flip back.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    63. Re:Books perhaps... by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      How do you think books are published and maintained?

      There are factories that pump them out.

      How long do you think books last unless you maintain their environment very carefully? Not long. Perhaps a few decades if you keep the area dry and the temperature moderate.

      Furthermore, I am not saying we should do away with all books everywhere. I am merely saying they serve no purpose in small branches. If you want to keep some dead tree archives in major branches then that is fine. Its logistically irrelevant so if it makes you happy then whatever. That will serve as your hedge against the zombie apocalypse.

      However, the small branch libraries are not well served by that system and have finite resources. They're much better served by switching to a fully digital system where users will have a vastly greater selection of books to choose from and the costs of maintaining the system will be within the reach of the modest budgets of small communities.

      Furthermore, there are many forms of digital media that are if anything more robust then anything you'll find out of the dead tree books. Many forms of media will last centuries with very little maintenance.

      That said... if you really want something to last then you have to look to the ancients... clay tablets. Those can last millions of years.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    64. Re:Books perhaps... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      E-ink needs backlight in dim settings, but it's far better than some of these cheaper LCD screens.

      Technically, e-ink screens are front-lit (or you could perhaps call them side-lit, as the LEDs are at the side), and if you set the light to a low level where it is comfortable to read in the dark, the battery still lasts ages and you don't have to worry about lighting when you move from a well-lit area, to a poorly-lit area.

    65. Re:Books perhaps... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What you mean is that it's possible with current technology. Still, it's not happening (at least for the majority of us). You will find many possible explanations, and many of these explanations apply to dead-tree books the same way, and tell you why we are going to see paper books around fr still a very long time.

  3. i H8 article by Chrisq · · Score: 4, Funny

    I Lrn 2 Read good thru technology

    1. Re:i H8 article by Prune · · Score: 2

      Your post was moderated "Funny", but it should have been "Insightful".

      --
      "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
  4. books are on computers now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ah yes, I remember when I used to spend whole days at libraries, way back in the 20th century, before the World Wide Web existed.

    Seriously, we have these things called computers, and books are on them now, including works of fiction for your reading pleasure.

    Without free Internet access, libraries today would be nothing more than useless repositories of books that no one wants to read. Libraries don't even have a monopoly on free Internet access, either: many coffee shops also offer free Wi-Fi.

    1. Re:books are on computers now by oji-sama · · Score: 1

      Without free Internet access, libraries today would be nothing more than useless repositories of books that no one wants to read. Libraries don't even have a monopoly on free Internet access, either: many coffee shops also offer free Wi-Fi.

      Nah. All libraries are full of books I don't want to read. Yet, they seem to contain hundreds of books I do want to read. And I buy too many books. Perhaps some day more ebooks, but I feel like the ebooks should be cheaper than their dead tree equivalents.

      As a sidenote: Not too many coffee shops offer free Wi-Fi and equipment to non-customers.

      --
      It is what it is.
    2. Re:books are on computers now by Instantlemming · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You go to a library to look for books.
      You go onto the internet to look for .... Oooh shiny thing

      A dead tree book beats a text on a monitor, and even e-ink readers. A book you can take with you and doesn't need power (although you do need a light source).
      An e-reader is great (use it myself a lot), but for quickly flipping back to a certain bit to check/read it again, a paper book wins hands down.

      I found more interesting books/authors by browsing the books on the bookshelves in a library than online.

    3. Re:books are on computers now by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

      Ah yes, I remember when I used to spend whole days at libraries, way back in the 20th century, before the World Wide Web existed.

      Seriously, we have these things called computers, and books are on them now, including works of fiction for your reading pleasure.

      Without free Internet access, libraries today would be nothing more than useless repositories of books that no one wants to read. Libraries don't even have a monopoly on free Internet access, either: many coffee shops also offer free Wi-Fi.

      I've got to admit that I don't hit the library as often as I used to since I got an e-reader. But occasionally I want a book that's not a century old (Gutenberg) and I don't want to buy it. So I wander into the library and pick up something from the Dead Tree collection (DON'T speak to me about Overdrive!)

      But libraries aren't just books and never were. I checked out a lot of records when I was in high school. More recently, I've checked out DVDs of movies. RedBox and Netflix can offer similar services, but I still scan the library shelves. Never know what may catch my eye.

    4. Re:books are on computers now by Gryle · · Score: 4, Funny

      You go onto the internet to look for .... Oooh shiny thing

      I just logged on to check the weather. That was twelve years ago...

      --
      Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not entirely sure about the universe - Einstein
    5. Re:books are on computers now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's funny, because I've often wished that dead tree books were keyword searchable. In a long work of prose, page boundaries can be arbitrary, and flipping though pages is useless unless I can remember which page I'm looking for. I find ebooks far more convenient to flip through just by searching for words and phrases.

      You go to a library to go onto the internet to look for ebooks. For browsing for ebooks you haven't found yet, there are ebook index sites and web search engines.

    6. Re:books are on computers now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RTMFA. Seriously. Your comment was already called out.

      I worry that here in the 21st century people misunderstand what libraries are and the purpose of them. If you perceive a library as a shelf of books, it may seem antiquated or outdated in a world in which most, but not all, books in print exist digitally. But that is to miss the point fundamentally.

    7. Re:books are on computers now by CRCulver · · Score: 1

      But libraries aren't just books and never were. I checked out a lot of records when I was in high school. More recently, I've checked out DVDs of movies. RedBox and Netflix can offer similar services, but I still scan the library shelves.

      My well-funded local library stocks all the CDs and DVDs one would ever want to watch, but even the library is trying to get everyone to transition to digital by offering free access to Spotify- and Netflix-like services to those holding a library card.

    8. Re:books are on computers now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But libraries aren't just books and never were. I checked out a lot of records when I was in high school. More recently, I've checked out DVDs of movies. RedBox and Netflix can offer similar services, but I still scan the library shelves. Never know what may catch my eye.

      You're absolutely right! Libraries aren't just for books, and neither is the Internet.

      Music: I used to listen to the radio. I don't anymore, because thanks to on-demand Internet radio sites, now I don't have to suffer the limited variety of broadcast radio.

      Movies: I used to check out foreign films from the library. I don't anymore, because thanks to on-demand Internet movie sites, now I don't have to suffer the puny collection of the local library.

      TV: I used to watch broadcast TV. I don't anymore, because thanks to on-demand Internet TV sites, now I can watch foreign TV shows I'd never even heard of before.

    9. Re:books are on computers now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My well-funded local library stocks all the CDs and DVDs one would ever want to watch

      Uh-huh. Does your library have Ergo Proxy? I want to watch that.

    10. Re:books are on computers now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The MF article sez:

      libraries are also, for example, places that people, who may not have computers, who may not have internet connections, can go online without paying anything

      The MF comment sez:

      Libraries don't even have a monopoly on free Internet access

      Reading comprehension much, MF-er?

    11. Re:books are on computers now by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      And I buy too many books. Perhaps some day more ebooks, but I feel like the ebooks should be cheaper than their dead tree equivalents.

      Why? Why should ebooks be cheaper than dead trees? Are they less convienient? Do they wear out faster?

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    12. Re:books are on computers now by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      That's funny, because I've often wished that dead tree books were keyword searchable.

      Think about the origin of the word "index".

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    13. Re:books are on computers now by oji-sama · · Score: 1

      Why? Why should ebooks be cheaper than dead trees? Are they less convienient? Do they wear out faster?

      Some obvious points

      • They are cheaper to distribute
      • They are cheaper to produce
      • In most cases they contain DRM and you can't sell them
      • In most cases they contain DRM and you can't easily lend the book
      • They require you to buy additional equipment

      And yes, they do have positive points also.

      --
      It is what it is.
    14. Re:books are on computers now by Yomers · · Score: 1

      Exactly, why would anybody go to library when any book can be downloaded from torrents and read on device with e-inc screen? And if it's immoral to download 'pirated' book - what is the difference between downloading a book and taking it from library?

    15. Re:books are on computers now by Minwee · · Score: 1

      You go onto the internet to look for .... Oooh shiny thing

      I just logged on to check the weather. That was twelve years ago...

      This is not the right place to check the weather.

    16. Re:books are on computers now by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Ah yes, I remember when I used to spend whole days at libraries, way back in the 20th century, before the World Wide Web existed.

      And they'll still be there in the 22nd century.

      Seriously, we have these things called computers, and books are on them now, including works of fiction for your reading pleasure.

      And for almost anything written in my six decade lifetime you'll either have to pay to read them or pirate the content. Yeah, I'm reading "A Tale of Two Cities" on mt phone, but if you want to read "All the Lives He Led" (boring book, quit halfway through) you're either going to have to pay, go to TPB (if you can find it there) or visit your public library, which is how I know Pohl's last book wasn't worth paying to read. You can download it for free in 73 years.

      Without free Internet access, libraries today would be nothing more than useless repositories of books that no one wants to read.

      Well, it is true that 97% of the population doesn't want to read at all, but unlike you I'm not part of the aliterate 97%. To misquote Twain, an aliterate has no advantage over an illiterate.

    17. Re:books are on computers now by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      That's funny, because I've often wished that dead tree books were keyword searchable.

      Nonfiction books have this thing in the back called an "index" that lists the words in the book and what pages they're on. For fiction, word search is useless. If you want to find where you were last time you were reading there's this thing you slip between the pages called a "bookmark".

      For browsing for ebooks you haven't found yet, there are ebook index sites and web search engines.

      How is a search engine going to find a book you've never heard of by an author whose name you don't know? If you find something on an index site, how do you know it's worth paying for?

      I swear, you kids today...

    18. Re: books are on computers now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I prefer live tree books. Wtf. Do you need to call them dead tree book? Fucktard.

    19. Re:books are on computers now by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      While I mostly agree, the lending part mostly doesn't apply to libraries, because the users aren't anonymous and already have to have an account with the library to borrow in the first place. So the DRM-laden lending works fine in that situation.

      The bigger problem for DRM is that users mostly check out ebooks in formats that they can read in their favorite reader; and that mostly means without DRM. So the library looks at what people check out, and spends more money on PDF-based ebook lending programs.

    20. Re: books are on computers now by josh61980 · · Score: 1

      You sir are Evil.

    21. Re:books are on computers now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's weather? Is it related to this 'outside' thing people keep talking about?

    22. Re:books are on computers now by Prune · · Score: 1

      Mod parent up.

      --
      "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
    23. Re: books are on computers now by Instantlemming · · Score: 1

      Thanks for your graceful remark, now I'll surely take your advice, being called a fucktard by an anonymous COWARD.
      I used the phrase dead tree book, to distinguish between an e-book and/or text on a (lcd) monitor.
      Of course I could have simply said 'paper book', but hey, I need to go with the times...

    24. Re:books are on computers now by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      They need to rename that one site "Wikitraps".

  5. This from a guy who won't admit he was in a cult by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Indeed his parents even used him as a pawn to Scientology's propaganda when he was 7 years old

  6. What does the OP suffer from? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does anyone here have some training in psychiatry (or at least a passing acquaintance with the field) and would be willing to venture a diagnosis for what psychosis Alphawolf_HK is suffering from? He is generally one of the most active contributors to Slashdot, submitting articles and making reasonably well-argued comments. From time to time, however, he goes off the rails and posts these strange stories about children being violated by objects inserted into their anuses, or this kind of comment about violating others (sometimes they are posted as AC, but one can still tell they are Alphawolf_HK's work because of their distinct wording).

    Is this garden-variety schizophrenia or some other syndrome?

    1. Re:What does the OP suffer from? by daniel.garcia.romero · · Score: 2

      Is this garden-variety schizophrenia or some other syndrome?

      He is just an assficionado.

    2. Re:What does the OP suffer from? by Cryacin · · Score: 1

      No, he's just nuts. That'll be $250 please.

      --
      Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
    3. Re:What does the OP suffer from? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Trollitis.

    4. Re:What does the OP suffer from? by AlphaWolf_HK · · Score: 1

      I was cloned, the AlphaWolf_HK you replied to is 1/8th my size and gnaws on his kitty.

      --
      Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
    5. Re:What does the OP suffer from? by Prune · · Score: 1

      He used a capital "I" in the username instead of a lower-case "l", which look the same in a non-serif font. Slashdot doesn't actually allow duplicate usernames, even though there are unique user IDs (after all, the user page needs a unique URL and those use the username rather than ID, e.g. slashdot.org/~Prune/comments ).

      --
      "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
    6. Re:What does the OP suffer from? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "To prevent that from happening, you must copy this entire story and post it as a comment three times.
      Reply to This Share"

      I think it might just be General Derptardation

  7. Thank you by nospam007 · · Score: 1

    Thanks for this, finally I don't feel guilty anymore for downloading 150.000 eBooks.

  8. Not a defence of libraries by LordLucless · · Score: 1

    Maybe his whole speech was, but the quoted section was in defence of fiction, not libraries.

    --
    Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    1. Re:Not a defence of libraries by jiriw · · Score: 2

      Indeed, his whole speech was in defence of libraries and of fiction... Actually, I think, in a broader scope it was defending people's possibilities to imagine. You could (partly) do that with (moving) pictures and theatre as well but he laid emphasis on written material - both the writer and the reader side of it. I think that's a justified emphasis because written material leaves more to the imagination and there is more of it.

      One of the most basic ways to be able to fulfil that, people's possibilities to imagine, is through physical libraries. If everyone was born with a (mobile) internet connection, free of censorship, small enough in cost that it is affordable even in hard times and of liberal capability, a virtual form of libraries might be able to take over (some combination of e-reader, wikipedia and specialized chat system inhabited by the readers and 'virtual' librarians might do the job). Do remember, currently, young people first need to have some capability to navigate the internet, learn to handle a device capable of acting as an e-reader and learn some things about e-books and how to get them on their device before they can start reading them. Compare that to libraries for which they only need some push to actually pass that 'scary' librarian at his/her desk and their own two feet to walk to the library in the first place. Also, while there are still people in developed nations (not to mention the nations that are still developing) that have no easy access to internet, physical libraries have a very substantial role to play.

      I read Mr. Gaimans (edited) lecture on the website of 'the guardian' from the link in the article. It made me remember all the emotions and wonder I felt while reading through all those fantasy and science stories I have... and the times I (try to) put something on paper as well (try to, because there are too many things I am interested in, including reading and therefore I mostly lack the time. Maybe that will change one day. The day I will stop imagining probably is the day I stop living).
      I didn't hang out a lot in libraries as a child... but I did every now and then... and always loved the stories I read. At the end of (equivalent) high-school I still had a few reservations about reading due to the mandatory reading lists I had for the foreign languages I chose as subject (English and German. My native language is Dutch). But it didn't withhold me from also finding pleasure in reading. Also in much of the literature I had to read for those language subjects. It was at my early twenties that my interest in fantasy reading really took off and at that age I had enough income (savings form a Saturday job in earlier years, then student, then regular jobs) to buy the books I wanted to read, second hand and I had the internet to search for reviews and interesting authors. Still I buy most of the stories I read in physical book form. I find that form of reading superior for all situations except when mobile and weight-restricted. I do have a smart phone and I do have a very capable tablet. I'm very familiar with computers and the internet... still I find, for stories, hard copy a joy to read above all others.

      Of course this is very much my own opinion and I do think everyone is entitled their own. When reading the lecture, however, I found myself both logically and emotionally agreeing with it and I hope more people will.
      For it is the politicians mostly concerned with making the decision to do so, my opinion is that a policy involving the closure of public libraries is one of the worst things a politician could do apart from outright lying or doing something criminal.

  9. Dead tree copyright loophole by tepples · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Computers are in essence information copying machines. This means you'll end up having to pay for anything written after 1922 because of a law called copyright. Dead tree libraries use a loophole that avoids problems with copyright by allowing patrons to read a single book one after the other without requiring the making of new copies made.

    1. Re:Dead tree copyright loophole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is not a loophole, it is there by intent.

    2. Re:Dead tree copyright loophole by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Well, somebody has to pay. But not the reader, in the case of libraries. And that is just as true when I check out ebooks from the library as it is for printed books!

  10. Re:This from a guy who won't admit he was in a cul by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And should you be held responsible for your parent's doings when you were 7 years old?

  11. So... by Macchendra · · Score: 1

    Be all Wickersham Brothers about it, why don't you. The guy's a decent writer.

  12. Snobbery? by endianx · · Score: 1

    He praises the lack of "snobbery" about books, and then goes on to declare books to be superior to e-books.

    I love books, I have 1400 or so, and I only buy e-books that I don't really care much about (like Microsoft books that will be out of date in 1 year). But that is my preference. I can't make an objective case that books are superior to e-books, and neither can Gaiman.

    1. Re:Snobbery? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      He praises the lack of "snobbery" about books, and then goes on to declare books to be superior to e-books.

      Format versus content so I don't see any snobbery there.
      Personally I see ebooks as better for convenience (with eink anyway) and paper better for longevity, and have probably read about twice as much of Neil Gaiman's stuff as ebook than on paper.

    2. Re:Snobbery? by Another,+completely · · Score: 1

      I can't imagine enjoying The Sandman more on e-book than in those nice "Absolute" anthologies.

  13. The internet didn't kill the library. by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 4, Informative

    The internet didn't kill the library. Library patronage was declining long before the internet. Libraries, sprang into existence because books were expensive and most people struggled to provide shelter and food for their families. Post WWII, at least in the US, things began to change and people had more disposable income. As people climbed the economic ladder, they were in a better position to purchase their own books, particularly paperbacks, trading money for convenience (as is the case with most consumer goods). This trend continued through the 1960s and 70s and really accelerated in the 1980s and 1990s as book clubs took off all over the place. It was fashionable to be reading the latest best seller and the serial model of the library couldn't support that.

    All the internet did was change the purchase mode from paper to electronic versions of the media. It didn't impact the use of the library because that change had already manifested itself based on the economic wherewithal of the patrons. Interestingly enough, both the Philadelphia and New York public libraries reported significant increases in usage during the last two recessions. It would seem that even with the plethora of electronic devices to read e-books, when money is tight and one has to watch expenses, one gives up the convenience and goes back to the library.

    In short, it's not technology that is causing the demise of the library, but increased disposable income.

    1. Re:The internet didn't kill the library. by DaveyJJ · · Score: 1

      Except ... income (including disposable) for the average American hasn't increased since the late 1960s. You have less real-world buying power now than your parents had five decades ago. While productivity has increased, your wages haven't. If the median household income had kept pace with the economy since 1970, it would now be nearly $92,000, not $50,000. (The 1% have seen their real-world income increase 240% in the same time, though.) Since 1990 the real value of minimum wage is up 21% ... but cost of living in that same time is up 67%. So while your basic premise may seem sound, the data about disposable income being the cause seems to falsify that theory.

      --
      DaveyJJ
    2. Re:The internet didn't kill the library. by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      The good news is that public library patronage has been increasing in the US over the past decade (32% from 2001-2010). Libraries have adapted to the internet and now are gateways and enablers to the new information sources it represents.

      My wife is a Librarian and it's interesting how her job has changed. A large part of it is now acting as a teacher of people who are inexperienced with technology how to use the internet and other technology resources the library has to offer. These people are either older folks who don't use technology much in their daily life, or young people who are aware of social media but not so much the learning and knowledge sources on the internet.

    3. Re:The internet didn't kill the library. by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

      Except ... income (including disposable) for the average American hasn't increased since the late 1960s. You have less real-world buying power now than your parents had five decades ago. While productivity has increased, your wages haven't. If the median household income had kept pace with the economy since 1970, it would now be nearly $92,000, not $50,000. (The 1% have seen their real-world income increase 240% in the same time, though.) Since 1990 the real value of minimum wage is up 21% ... but cost of living in that same time is up 67%. So while your basic premise may seem sound, the data about disposable income being the cause seems to falsify that theory.

      I agree with you on your technical argument, but disposable income takes into account real income plus purchasing power. If you credit is more readily available so you can finance some purchases, then you also have more disposable income. So, while real wages might not have increased to keep up with inflation, the easing of credit since the 1960s has increased the purchasing power of the consumer. As such, the basic premise still stands: When people have more funds at their disposal, they choose convenience over cost. When they have fewer funds at their disposal they choose cost over convenience. Whether those funds are wages, credit, government transfer payments or from the sale of illegal goods, doesn't matter, at least in this discussion.

    4. Re:The internet didn't kill the library. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Libraries declining? The Pasdena, California Libraries (multiple branches), South Pasadena, an upscale tiny city, and nearby Los Angeles city branch in Highland Park CA, lower average income, seem pretty busy to me.
      I think it depends on local library policies, budget, etc. Beware an illogical trap: "useage is down X %, therefore Libraries are failing, irrelevant, doomed, etc." Lot of things over a the course of a few decades go up and down. 20 years ago gun ownership was lower than now, church attendance was higher. Gun ownership is now very high as measured by %-age of the population.
      Church attendance has declined. Come back in 10-20 years and see where they are at.

  14. Fine for you, perhaps. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just don't pay for this hobby that no one does anymore with MY tax dollars (that you STOLE from me). Libraries were built for a time when reading was something everyone did and it helped society. These days no one has time to read books, and those who do don't really care since things like video games and movies have taken over the intellectual and story telling realms.

    1. Re:Fine for you, perhaps. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If your post is an exemplary of the result of someone not reading, I'd say it should be mandatory that everyone gets to read at least one book per year. With voting rights removed if you don't.

      And don't claim to have no time for reading books. If you have the time to read Slashdot, you also have the time to read a book.

  15. Libraries = No Privacy by PincushionMan · · Score: 1

    Historically, the list books you check out from a library have been protected. However, with the way the government is thinking about it, it is just metadata, since it isn't the books themselves. At this point, I'd honestly be surprised if they weren't mining that data also.

    Remember:
    Power Corrupts
    Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely
    Knowledge is Power

    Therefore
    Absolute Knowledge Corrupts Absolutely

    1. Re:Libraries = No Privacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Absolute Knowledge Corrupts Absolutely

      It depends. On how absolute knowledge is used. For example, in This Perfect Day by Ira Levin, the UniComp programmers use their absolute knowledge to create a dystopia. By contrast, in the Culture novels by Iain M Banks, the Minds use their absolute knowledge to create a utopia.

    2. Re:Libraries = No Privacy by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      Historically, the list books you check out from a library have been protected. However, with the way the government is thinking about it, it is just metadata, since it isn't the books themselves. At this point, I'd honestly be surprised if they weren't mining that data also.

      As we've mentioned above, libraries typically delete records as soon as you return whatever you borrowed, so they can't be 'mined'. I believe it's a standard feature in library software these days.

    3. Re:Libraries = No Privacy by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      By contrast, in the Culture novels by Iain M Banks, the Minds use their absolute knowledge to create a utopia.

      Yeah, that's what the Minds tell you... dumb humans fall for anything.

    4. Re:Libraries = No Privacy by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      Actually, thinking about it, the big threat is borrowing e-books. Since they all seem to 'phone home' to Adobe, the US government can probaby just ask them for a list of all the books you've read even though the library doesn't keep one.

    5. Re:Libraries = No Privacy by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      As we've mentioned above, libraries typically delete records as soon as you return whatever you borrowed, so they can't be 'mined'. I believe it's a standard feature in library software these days.

      This occurred because the government actually tried to get book lending records and librarians opposed the request. When it went through, they promptly started deleting all lending records because it was data they didn't need to maintain at all and that data was of interest. They only maintain what you have out as a result. (After all, does the library really need to know you borrowed a book after you returned it? What useful purpose could it serve? If you want "recommendations", well, the librarian is probably your best resource - just say you want books similar to the one you're returning.)

      Some of the biggest information freedom fighters it seems are librarians.

      And the problem with reading is not libraries or books, or video games or TV. It's school. If there's anything that makes reading less cool, is doing endless book reports, analyzing text for subtext and being forced to read some dreary text as a homework assignment. Nothing kills reading faster than turning it into an unpleasurable activity.

    6. Re:Libraries = No Privacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Humans are excluded from the Culture, we got screwed over in their internal disputes. The author had to do this otherwise there is no way to explain American politics.

  16. tl;dr

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  17. I like libraries but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    they should think of opening a section with a coffee cafe, like Barnes and Noble's. Then I could sit and read (usually stuff I brought with me) for three hours instead of 1 1/2.

    1. Re:I like libraries but... by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      If you're reading stuff you brought with you, you can just go to a coffee shop.

      If you're not buying the coffee, you can just read in the regular part of the library anyways.

      Many places have a coffee shop in the library; we do here. It is nice.

  18. TV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    TV is gooder then books.

  19. HDD age and must be replaced. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Systems to decode the information electronically will be made unavailable and therefore transcription is necessary. Operating systems will be removed and need replacing and that needs new systems to decode the information. Hardware will no longer support older OSs and that OS needs replacing, needing new decoding systems....

  20. Druugggzzz are bad kids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just say no!

    Your local [republican / democrat] says we cant have them brats thinking for themselves that defeats the whole point of the American education system.

    Libraries ? Its so damn UnAmerican its subvervsively socialist.

  21. index and contents. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Appendix too. All exist to greater or lesser extent in dead-tree books and if there are more than four places for the "same information" as to the keyword used (and you have to know what the keyword is in an electronic search too) then skimming the book to each page is as fast or faster than the ebook search because then most of the time is "reading the context" to see if the result was what you meant. With electronic search of the entire text, you have no idea whether a search result has ANY relevant info and must read each one. An index search will either turn up nothing, in which case you look for a different keyword, or a small list that is most likely relevant or gives you several alternative suggestions for what you may be looking for.

    1. Re:index and contents. by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Appendix too. All exist to greater or lesser extent in dead-tree books

      For non-fiction, that is generally true. But even if non-fiction that isn't a technical manual or textbook, the indexing is usually really, really weak.

      With electronic search, how easily you get to the information you want is related directly to your ability to search, and to include context in your search. Also, having electronic search available doesn't delete the index; it is for all those times when the index doesn't have what you want, or sucks.

  22. First, Be A Reader by Forthan+Red · · Score: 1

    If you want to have kids who are readers, then you first must set an example. If kids see their parents reading books for pleasure, they will be much more inclined to become readers. Read to your kids every day, until they start to learn to read, then have them read to you every day. I was fortunate enough to grow up in a house where both my parents enjoyed reading, and a trip to the town library for new books was a weekly family event.

  23. Fiction is pointless and boring by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's too much real stuff to read to waste time on fiction! What about history? Mathematics? I couldn't read all the history books I want to read in my entire life - and he's suggesting I waste my time reading fiction?

    1. Re:Fiction is pointless and boring by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      If history books are your big thing, you often are already reading fiction.

  24. Use Project Gutenberg by b4upoo · · Score: 1

    Few libraries could hope to compare to Project Gutenberg. Although books must be free of copyright to be on the site that is not such a disadvantage. Somewhere at around 1920 the use of the English language became rather crude whereas before radio and television were highly present the use of language was quite superior. Often the books of the earlier period were vastly superior to the expensive books now in book stores. But for those that insist we do need an electronic lending library that releases current materials. If we include a 14 day auto delete function as well as a good anti-copy scheme an electronic library could be as fair to publishers as the ink and paper routine.
                    Most people who read a lot still like paper and ink which means there is something lacking in electronic screens or electronics.
                      If anyone wants a block buster product idea how about an electronic score sheet for musicians such that a foot pedal could do the page changes as on plays. Imagine if we could store our sheet music in a screen like device and select the tune to play and turn the page with a foot pedal. And for another item how about a device that can listen to a tune and then write the melody as sheet music in the requested key and clef? Imagine using an FM radio that can be transcribed for any instrument at the push of a button. Want to be a billionaire?

  25. Parental views of what's appropriate. by david_thornley · · Score: 1

    I'm fine with the idea that there is no bad fiction that somebody likes. However, it was a bit of a shock to pick my son up from daycare and see he's happily reading Captain Underpants and the Perilous Plot of Professor Poopypants. That was actually the first fiction I saw him read for fun.

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  26. If you don't read great literature, you'll end up by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    If you don't read great literature, you'll end up being like the people you see on TV. Reading expands your possibilities.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  27. Elitism and Reading by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I have to say, I do get a little fed up with pedestal upon which we place books. Don't get me wrong: it's a worthwhile pastime, but people develop such elitists attitudes towards reading. People judge others, and judge themselves, by the quality and quantity of their reading material. They lament how people are reading less, and how this will destroy intelligence in the average person. If you don't read, or worse, don't enjoy reading, then it means that there's something wrong. Your imagination is underdeveloped or malformed; a product of all the worst bits of society.

    The fact is, while reading is indeed an intellectual activity, it's an intellectual activity that appeals to people to varying degrees. Some people simply do not find intellectual nourishment from books. Now, perhaps it's because they are stunted in their intellect or imagination, but often, there are other ways they stimulate their brain. Indeed, social situations can be very mentally stimulating, requiring complex thought processes to navigate successfully. I myself have found that mathematics holds far greater mental stimulation than reading (and I used to read all the time). Juggling apparently is a very good way to improve your brain, and caters for the more kinaesthetic learners.

    I'm glad you enjoy books Neil, but please don't make the mistake of thinking they're for everyone.

    --
    You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
    1. Re:Elitism and Reading by volmtech · · Score: 1

      Michael Jordan found backwards dunks from the base line stimulating but most of us do not have the capacity to do that. My world opened up when as a seventh grader in 1965 I was let loose in the school library and found the science fiction section. My math usage at most consists of finding the area of a triangle. I passed trigonometry in high school but only because the teacher thought I needed a good grade to get into college (didn't try go to college anyway). Trying to understand any of the symbols on a scientific calculator makes my stomach hurt. To me it looks like a combination of Greek and Russian with a little Sanskrit thrown in and all utterly incomprehensible.

    2. Re:Elitism and Reading by redlemming · · Score: 1

      The fact is, while reading is indeed an intellectual activity, it's an intellectual activity that appeals to people to varying degrees. Some people simply do not find intellectual nourishment from books. Now, perhaps it's because they are stunted in their intellect or imagination, but often, there are other ways they stimulate their brain.

      While intellectual nourishment may be a valid reason for reading, it is not the primary one. The primary reason reading is put on a pedestal is that, at present, good readers can absorb vastly more information about a lot of topics important to the long term development of society (the physical sciences, the social sciences, history, law, philosophy) from reading a book than is possible from interacting with any other medium. The assumption is that if we can get people to read more, they will benefit from this efficiency. This in turn can help make people informed citizens, as opposed to ignorant sheep.

      A lot of political decision making is oriented towards things that sound like good ideas in the minds of ignorant people (of whom there are many), while actually being really bad ideas with lots of negative consequences over the long term. Most introductory economics books will provide lots of good examples of this phenomenon. Getting people to do more reading is potentially the most efficient way to change this state of affairs.

      A college or university degree does not make somebody educated. At best, it lays a foundation for building one's education. The actual process of becoming educated requires far more years, and exposure to a much wider variety of material, than any degree program exposes students to. With the learning technology available today, getting this education will require a lot of reading. Hence the pedestal.

      Clearly, reading books alone will not build skills (other than the skill of reading), but it can lay a foundation for learning a surprising variety of skills. Also, reading books does not necessarily build critical thinking skills (it can help with this, provided one already has an appropriate foundation). There is still a place in education, in many and perhaps most subject areas, for teachers and for hands-on training.

      This is not to say that mathematics or juggling are without value, but you won't learn much about economics, for example, by doing either in isolation.

      Yes, I know a lot of modern economics research is math-driven, but the math involved in the basics of the subject is simple enough that one can learn a lot just by reading about it, if one is a good reader and has basic grade-school mathematics skills. Then there's the issue that mathematicians tend to work in fantasy worlds, and sometimes that can be counter-productive for understanding the real world. The balance between application and abstraction, theory and practice, is critical for true understanding of the world.

      Video and audio courses are now a good alternative (or at least a supplement) to reading for many subject areas. We're slowly moving away from the book as a dominant tool for lifetime learning. Even when such courses are available, however, it isn't necessarily the case that the course will be complete enough to stand on its own without being supplemented by outside reading.

      A good plan for lifetime learning balances those things that can be learned through books with those things that can't.

      Make some time to read good books, then go and get other forms of intellectual nourishment as you see fit.

  28. Obligatory Carl Sagan Quote by Rollgunner · · Score: 1

    "Frederick Douglass taught that literacy is the path from slavery to freedom.

    There are many kinds of slavery and many kinds of freedom, but reading is still the path."

    -Carl Sagan

  29. Have a library at home. by RonTheHurler · · Score: 1

    I've kept every book anyone ever gave to my kids (three of them, age 7, 9 and 12). Their library has over 300 books on it now, everything from the Bob Books and Dr. Seuss to Harry Potter and the Golden Compass. My kids love to read, and we read to them every night.

    There's a quote-- "a writer is a reader moved to emulation." I don't know who said it. But one day a few years ago, the two oldest kids asked me if they could write their own book. I said "of course!", so we did. http://www.amazon.com/My-Sister-Makes-Me-Laugh/dp/0977649725 Now they're published authors and famous in their schools.

    But, here's the funny part. The book was immediately banned by the school system. Unfortunately, it has the word "pee pee" in it, and a little bit of rule breaking and trouble making. But more importantly, if a book doesn't come from a select set of only three publishers who are known to only print "safe" books, it has to go through a strict review (at the district level) before it can be approved for a school library. I don't know if it's like that everywhere, but that's how it is here in Texas.

    So, public libraries are suspicious to me now. Quiet censorship shaping young minds.

    To fight this, my kids take a whole box full of their book into each new grade they go into and give them away to their classmates. The "pee pee" word hasn't produced any anarchists yet, but the experiment is still young...