I'm pretty sure that if it really came down to a choice between supporting your system and boiling lead on the genitals of, shall we say, key players within the vendor in question, you would get support. This being the case I think your course is clear...
(Clearly I was speaking from the disgusting depth of a degraded consumeristic wasteland. What I meant was, 99% of the (non-flash etc) audio-visual content I happen upon on ye olde internette plays on either Quicktime or WMP... And yes, the fact I am using a Mac running OSX makes it accessible. In my defense, in the debate of whether Real will survive or not, the vast majority of potential consumers are in the same boat as me).
Whatever turns your crank, man, it's your money. I find the search to be fun but that's just me. You seem a little bit uptight, by the way. Relax, it's just music.
I might actually give them another try at some point based on that testimony. I have refused to bother with content requiring real for a good long while now because I found their stuff so intrusive in the past with minimal reward. Actually needing Real has become pretty rare and I question whether they can really make it at this point. The bottom line is that windows media and quicktime play almost everything and are very minimally intrusive otherwise. I'm still not jumping up to pick up Real.
Oh, I don't know. The perpetrators are involved in electronic fund transfer at some point, meaning at some point a wired bank possesses their money. An outfit like Citibank has long arms and it can swing a lot of influence. They're probably just trying to get a handle on the scope and source of a fraudulent activity carried out in their name right now, but I think they could motivate some enforcement if they could identify a target.
I'm right there with you. I can already buy cheaper music that can play on an iPod. No reverse engineering is needed: the format is called MP3, you may have heard of it. The prices range from free to whatever. Finding something I like involves a little extra digging, sampling, and detective work... but I actually find that more interesting than being spoonfed Very Popular Radio Hitz complete with useless yet encumbering software designed around the premise that I am a thief. I keep a few bucks in a Bitpass account, a few bucks in my Paypal account, it's all pretty easy.
Another technologically advanced method I find usefull: I actually have the data in question mailed to me on a cunning media called a compact disc. It serves the same purpose as the download and acts as an archive to boot. Why it even plays on numerous standalone devices I happen to own. And since I again opt for the more unusual sources over the semidigested pablum that drecks all over the radio and tevee, I don't have any problems with DRM and usually pay around 50 cents a track anyway. It may be a minority but who's spending smarter money? I've had numerous opportunities to get free iTunes tracks. No interest. Why muddy up my collection?
Holy overrated, Batman. That's "deep." Actually this statement is not only semantically empty, it's also a syntactically a really poorly constructed sentiment. I presume the person means "like in all great republics, in the USA democracy is but an illusion." Whatever that means... but at least its properly constructed and means something.
The point of this article is using copyright to suppress free speech in politics. Pity the article relies on two irrelevant and non-equivalent examples for the premise. In the first case, NBC refuses to sell a copyright on a segment of the show and the author takes the enormous stretch that this is George Bush's fault... I guess he should have looked into the future, determined they would refuse to sell the clip, and refused to appear on Meet the Press. In the second example, the individual in question, who is not John Kerry, is objecting to his copywrited images being used without permission. Is he politically motivated? Of course. Does he have the right to demand his images not be used without permission? Of course. Does his assertion of his copyright in any way prevent the individuals who violated his copyright without seeking or gaining permission from exercising their right to communicate what they want to? Absolutely not. So you are left with a basic argument that the fact of copyright law is a de facto violation of free speech. An interesting premise, pity the author of this post didn't state it. There is now officially no place on the internet I can go without having stupid ideas about politics shoved down my throat. But hey, like in all great moderated posting sites, real discussion is but an illusion.
While it sported an interesting enough initial premise, this post was prederrailled by the off-topic (and innaccurate and misleading) "clever" postscript. Bush and Kerry do not in fact "agree" on gay marriage, which is exactly what the cited link states - the story in question supports the poster's assertion only from the most semantic and specious viewpoint. Bush and Kerry do not in fact "agree" on outsourcing, the cited link in fact notes the story of a supporter of outsourcing supporting Kerry on the basis of other issues. This isn't even close to a justification for the poster's assertion so at this point I have to assume they are just willfully stirring the swill for no decent reason. The second half of this posting is in fact a troll.
And yeah, I have an opinion, a strong opinion, on why it does in fact make a difference who you vote for and whether it makes more sense to vote for a third-party candidate or not. But I won't share it here because it isn't relevant to the actual topic. Jeez, if I want to have a pointless, terminally threadjacked smack-down conversation about the presidential race I'll go hang out on Fark.
I don't know how well the two compare. The chess problem to me seems to mainly be exploiting what computers do well (doing vast numbers of computation with blinding speed and a perfect ability to "remember" all the possible permutations and outcomes). Chess is essentially a "math" game, there is no functional difference between the coded representation the computer manipulates to determine its moves and the physical board a player plays on. Hence, the computer's strengths give it a very real and critical advantage - I can't project more than a few moves ahead with any exactness, I can't keep a perfect visualization of every permutation of possible game fields in my mind, I can all too easily make a stupid move that a computer would never make (and, if I make it, will never fail to exploit).
On the other hand, while in theory pool may be a relatively simple game of angles, it occurs in the messy, chaotic world of real physics where surfaces are imperfectly elastic and the odd variations of spin and friction will create very complex effects. Ideally the computer-assisted robot has certain benefits - totally correct perception of angles and distances, ability to control the exact angle and velocity of the strike - but the human being is uniquely suited for transacting these messy physical transactions in the real world.
I don't know if the comparison to chess is putting this reseach down, but it is probably rather an apples and oranges situation. The chess problem is primarily one of raw computational strength carefully programmed for a very specific goal. This is much more, as you say, attacking the problem of getting a computer to be able to negotiate the not-so-easily described (in a way a computer can deal with) problems of physical reality. Pretty neat.
I also received mine. Is it possible some technicality or glitch prevented some from receiving theirs (they misfiled the form in som minor way?) It sucks that some people filed for it but missed out on the payment.
(I immediately spent mine on independently produced music from CD Baby. Take that!)
But is Apple's share of the MP3 player market anything to do with the file format? I don't know, I'm not claiming to have data I don't, but it seems to me the suggestion that the proprietary format music for sale on iTMS are driving iPod sales is suspect. I mean, I'm considering picking up an iPod, and it sure won't be because of the iTunes music store because I won't touch it with a ten foot pole - because I happen to hate DRM on my music. The whole argument seems misbegotten to me. Having an iPod doesn't stop you from buying music from other sources. iTMS music only plays on an iPod, but there are plenty of other ways to get digital music - the CD being the most obvious and I would have to imagine far and away the dominant source of digital files for almost all MP3 player owners everywhere.
Well honestly too, what the hell are Daleks worth without Dr. Who? Since the only people who could possibly be even nominally interested in a Daleks spinoff would be Dr. Who fans, and what are you going to do - tell the Sci Fi channel you want to do a special, oh and by the way, that all the people who are likely to watch hate you for refusing to play ball with the BBC, and plus you can't most of the recognizable features of the alternate universe in question? Sound business strategye. I'm quite sure this simple fact was the basis of the "reconcilliation" - and that the "breakdown" was merely a stunt to squeeze a bit more money out of the property, and that the announcements that Dr. Who would soldier on without the Daleks was the counter - the BBC playing a little hardball ("we can make it without you") to force them to be reasonable. Price of doing business, I suppose.
I expect IBM will probably follow through on this, but really a statement of no intentions is basically meaningless. Corporations are ruled by the concept of shareholder value, and can and do basically justify anything legal and a lot that's not, regardless of what they've said or done in the past, under that banner. I'd advise the Linux community to keep an eye on plan B.
I suggest making it an internet meme on the scale to shame savekaryn.com. She runs a chat thing, somebody here has to know her. Set up a donation site to collectively, temporarily buy her domain. Get somebody like Stile to be the webmaster, somebody who is used to having a whole lotta people mad at him/her. Once the appropriate sum has been reached (say, the amount of money she'd need to take a year off, sounds like she needs it), turn it over to Slashdotters - the trollers, the goatse boosters, the sick child who pulls the wings off flies in each of us - to collectively create the website you absolutely would not want to go to. Popups, grossly NSFW images, midi renditions of "Eye of the Tiger" that won't shut off. Ought to clear the matter up in about a year. Then give it back.
If you're talking about clerical work, typing is absolutely still a necessary skill. Whoever said that employers no longer specify WPM or that 30 WPM is sufficient for most clerical jobs was simply wrong. Read the want ads. I got a typing test at each of the three temp agencies I've worked for and over the last 5 years been administered several typing tests applying for jobs.
It is not a substitute for computer skills. You need both in any modern office job with an emphasis on writing. I don't think typing should be required (I never took it in school, I taught myself to touch type, it ain't rocket science). But it should be offered.
According to the site he went to his employer with the intention of completing the development of the idea, a justification for why it was not covered under what he signed, and a request that they acknowledge that the idea was his own. It appears they first tried to cut a deal (offering to employ him full time working on the idea and pay him a percentage of any savings they realized from its development up to 2 million) then took him to court. Part of the exceptional nature of the case (at least byhis claims) is that there was no invention per se - the invention existed purely in his mind. Basically the rulings against him are saying he must give them the idea - not just turn over work or give them a patent but essentially transmit his thoughts to them regarding whatever he came up with about it.
Legally? Man, I don't have a clue. All the stuff on his site is obviously biased, but one would do well to watch this carefully if they are 1) the kind of person who's likely to be asked this sort of thing and 2) prone to genius ideas. Funny, it's never come up for me...
I don't actually disagree with you - I think it is inevitable (though the timeline happen when it happens, and books have a bad chicken-and-egg problem as compared to, say, music where you can play your whole CD collection on your iPod) that the book will become something like the LP is now - a specialty product that gives nicer, if ultimately more fragile and less versatile, packaging, and a certain satisfying physicality.
My issue with books and paper is not "romantic" - everything I said about print books was purely pragmatic. This pragmatism does indeed diminish when you're dealing with a monster like Quicksilver (haven't gotten to Confusion yet - but damn, cheaply bound books tick me off). This fellow asked what it was about some currently accessible electronic text formats he didn't like, and I gave some practical reasons.
Believe me: if there was a ruggged, backlit, waterproof device that would display text from a variety of formats with visual quality approximately equal to paper and decent weight and battery life, I'd be there - up to a couple three hundred bucks. I would also still enjoy new and used print books as I enjoy my LPs and 8-tracks now. But I would probably save that for top-quality editions of permanent library stuff, and go purely electronic for more throwaway literature likely to be available only in a cheap mass market editions anyway.
I feel the same way, though in the end it will depend on exactly what the exploit was and what you can manage to do with it. Provided they truly just reverse engineered it and it doesn't let you subvert apple DRM I don't see how it will be illegal even under DMCA.
Of course, being as how I'm just waiting for the right OGG-compatible player to come into the right price range, and how I refuse to buy from iTunes because I hate DRM with all my heart and soul, and that I won't even have any Real product on my machines because I hate them even worse, it is all rather a moot point to me. I don't really see what Real expect to gain out of it, tho, except maybe accelerating the only sensible business strategy for them, namely to go out of business and sell their assets, such as they are, to Apple. Now that you mention it...
I think there are actually a lot of very sensible reasons for your preference. printing on paper is a great visual medium. Its visual clarity is at this point superior to any electronic display in the commercial formats you mentioned. A well-designed book using a carefully chosen typeface is a pleasure to read; I am far from the only person decrying the ugly, generic appearance of most computer generated text.
Scrolling sucks. It breaks up the reading experience. Its fiddly. You open a book. You hold it in one hand. You access a whole page of text, then another with the slightest turn of your head. One flip of the page and you're at the next block. It encourages the restful, still, contemplative state that for me is part of what makes reading a pleasure.
You never open a book only to find you have to fiddle the size of the frame to get a full view of the page. You can easily read your book in a large range of light from a large variety of angles. Your book is durable. It can be dropped, squashed, thrown into any bag, thrown at the wall if it ticks you off badly enough, moderately wetted, exposed to quite a lot of heat or cold and any amount of magnetism, and it will continue to function normally.
I think there is an inevitable degree of almost subconscious distraction in using electronic gadgets. Will the battery run down? Will it mysteriously stop working? Will I break it? Accidentally shut it off? With a cell phone, say, or a gameboy I might put up with this because there is simply no substitute for talking on the phone or playing a video game on the bus. With a book, using the old fashioned paper format eliminates every one of these concerns. You almost never think about how your book is working.
Recorded music in general has a little over a century of history behind it. Digital and truly portable music formats, a couple decades. The book (that is to say the codex) appeared in the first century AD. We've had nearly two thousand years to work on the mass production of the book as a useful object. Driving this development, the book has been the primary device for disseminating religious and political ideas. You like books because they work really well at the job they're made to do.
Slashdot Mirror
When did you stop trusting sponsored 'research'?
good grief, you're saying you once trusted sponsored research?
I'm pretty sure that if it really came down to a choice between supporting your system and boiling lead on the genitals of, shall we say, key players within the vendor in question, you would get support. This being the case I think your course is clear...
(Clearly I was speaking from the disgusting depth of a degraded consumeristic wasteland. What I meant was, 99% of the (non-flash etc) audio-visual content I happen upon on ye olde internette plays on either Quicktime or WMP... And yes, the fact I am using a Mac running OSX makes it accessible. In my defense, in the debate of whether Real will survive or not, the vast majority of potential consumers are in the same boat as me).
Whatever turns your crank, man, it's your money. I find the search to be fun but that's just me. You seem a little bit uptight, by the way. Relax, it's just music.
I might actually give them another try at some point based on that testimony. I have refused to bother with content requiring real for a good long while now because I found their stuff so intrusive in the past with minimal reward. Actually needing Real has become pretty rare and I question whether they can really make it at this point. The bottom line is that windows media and quicktime play almost everything and are very minimally intrusive otherwise. I'm still not jumping up to pick up Real.
Oh, I don't know. The perpetrators are involved in electronic fund transfer at some point, meaning at some point a wired bank possesses their money. An outfit like Citibank has long arms and it can swing a lot of influence. They're probably just trying to get a handle on the scope and source of a fraudulent activity carried out in their name right now, but I think they could motivate some enforcement if they could identify a target.
I'm right there with you. I can already buy cheaper music that can play on an iPod. No reverse engineering is needed: the format is called MP3, you may have heard of it. The prices range from free to whatever. Finding something I like involves a little extra digging, sampling, and detective work... but I actually find that more interesting than being spoonfed Very Popular Radio Hitz complete with useless yet encumbering software designed around the premise that I am a thief. I keep a few bucks in a Bitpass account, a few bucks in my Paypal account, it's all pretty easy.
Another technologically advanced method I find usefull: I actually have the data in question mailed to me on a cunning media called a compact disc. It serves the same purpose as the download and acts as an archive to boot. Why it even plays on numerous standalone devices I happen to own. And since I again opt for the more unusual sources over the semidigested pablum that drecks all over the radio and tevee, I don't have any problems with DRM and usually pay around 50 cents a track anyway. It may be a minority but who's spending smarter money? I've had numerous opportunities to get free iTunes tracks. No interest. Why muddy up my collection?
Maybe they're selling links now like FARK.
Holy overrated, Batman. That's "deep." Actually this statement is not only semantically empty, it's also a syntactically a really poorly constructed sentiment. I presume the person means "like in all great republics, in the USA democracy is but an illusion." Whatever that means... but at least its properly constructed and means something.
The point of this article is using copyright to suppress free speech in politics. Pity the article relies on two irrelevant and non-equivalent examples for the premise. In the first case, NBC refuses to sell a copyright on a segment of the show and the author takes the enormous stretch that this is George Bush's fault... I guess he should have looked into the future, determined they would refuse to sell the clip, and refused to appear on Meet the Press. In the second example, the individual in question, who is not John Kerry, is objecting to his copywrited images being used without permission. Is he politically motivated? Of course. Does he have the right to demand his images not be used without permission? Of course. Does his assertion of his copyright in any way prevent the individuals who violated his copyright without seeking or gaining permission from exercising their right to communicate what they want to? Absolutely not. So you are left with a basic argument that the fact of copyright law is a de facto violation of free speech. An interesting premise, pity the author of this post didn't state it. There is now officially no place on the internet I can go without having stupid ideas about politics shoved down my throat. But hey, like in all great moderated posting sites, real discussion is but an illusion.
While it sported an interesting enough initial premise, this post was prederrailled by the off-topic (and innaccurate and misleading) "clever" postscript. Bush and Kerry do not in fact "agree" on gay marriage, which is exactly what the cited link states - the story in question supports the poster's assertion only from the most semantic and specious viewpoint. Bush and Kerry do not in fact "agree" on outsourcing, the cited link in fact notes the story of a supporter of outsourcing supporting Kerry on the basis of other issues. This isn't even close to a justification for the poster's assertion so at this point I have to assume they are just willfully stirring the swill for no decent reason. The second half of this posting is in fact a troll.
And yeah, I have an opinion, a strong opinion, on why it does in fact make a difference who you vote for and whether it makes more sense to vote for a third-party candidate or not. But I won't share it here because it isn't relevant to the actual topic. Jeez, if I want to have a pointless, terminally threadjacked smack-down conversation about the presidential race I'll go hang out on Fark.
Net admins can be told to wear gloves...
Yeah, you know, or not.
Even worse, it encourages people to write their passwords down and store them in what is probably a very insecure location!
Hold on, are you saying that the post-it note labled "network password" on my cubicle wall is insecure?
I don't know how well the two compare. The chess problem to me seems to mainly be exploiting what computers do well (doing vast numbers of computation with blinding speed and a perfect ability to "remember" all the possible permutations and outcomes). Chess is essentially a "math" game, there is no functional difference between the coded representation the computer manipulates to determine its moves and the physical board a player plays on. Hence, the computer's strengths give it a very real and critical advantage - I can't project more than a few moves ahead with any exactness, I can't keep a perfect visualization of every permutation of possible game fields in my mind, I can all too easily make a stupid move that a computer would never make (and, if I make it, will never fail to exploit).
On the other hand, while in theory pool may be a relatively simple game of angles, it occurs in the messy, chaotic world of real physics where surfaces are imperfectly elastic and the odd variations of spin and friction will create very complex effects. Ideally the computer-assisted robot has certain benefits - totally correct perception of angles and distances, ability to control the exact angle and velocity of the strike - but the human being is uniquely suited for transacting these messy physical transactions in the real world.
I don't know if the comparison to chess is putting this reseach down, but it is probably rather an apples and oranges situation. The chess problem is primarily one of raw computational strength carefully programmed for a very specific goal. This is much more, as you say, attacking the problem of getting a computer to be able to negotiate the not-so-easily described (in a way a computer can deal with) problems of physical reality. Pretty neat.
I also received mine. Is it possible some technicality or glitch prevented some from receiving theirs (they misfiled the form in som minor way?) It sucks that some people filed for it but missed out on the payment.
(I immediately spent mine on independently produced music from CD Baby. Take that!)
But is Apple's share of the MP3 player market anything to do with the file format? I don't know, I'm not claiming to have data I don't, but it seems to me the suggestion that the proprietary format music for sale on iTMS are driving iPod sales is suspect. I mean, I'm considering picking up an iPod, and it sure won't be because of the iTunes music store because I won't touch it with a ten foot pole - because I happen to hate DRM on my music. The whole argument seems misbegotten to me. Having an iPod doesn't stop you from buying music from other sources. iTMS music only plays on an iPod, but there are plenty of other ways to get digital music - the CD being the most obvious and I would have to imagine far and away the dominant source of digital files for almost all MP3 player owners everywhere.
maybe they need to have a contest where college kids build a webserver that can stand up to a slashdot link for more than 5 minutes...
Well honestly too, what the hell are Daleks worth without Dr. Who? Since the only people who could possibly be even nominally interested in a Daleks spinoff would be Dr. Who fans, and what are you going to do - tell the Sci Fi channel you want to do a special, oh and by the way, that all the people who are likely to watch hate you for refusing to play ball with the BBC, and plus you can't most of the recognizable features of the alternate universe in question? Sound business strategye. I'm quite sure this simple fact was the basis of the "reconcilliation" - and that the "breakdown" was merely a stunt to squeeze a bit more money out of the property, and that the announcements that Dr. Who would soldier on without the Daleks was the counter - the BBC playing a little hardball ("we can make it without you") to force them to be reasonable. Price of doing business, I suppose.
I expect IBM will probably follow through on this, but really a statement of no intentions is basically meaningless. Corporations are ruled by the concept of shareholder value, and can and do basically justify anything legal and a lot that's not, regardless of what they've said or done in the past, under that banner. I'd advise the Linux community to keep an eye on plan B.
I suggest making it an internet meme on the scale to shame savekaryn.com. She runs a chat thing, somebody here has to know her. Set up a donation site to collectively, temporarily buy her domain. Get somebody like Stile to be the webmaster, somebody who is used to having a whole lotta people mad at him/her. Once the appropriate sum has been reached (say, the amount of money she'd need to take a year off, sounds like she needs it), turn it over to Slashdotters - the trollers, the goatse boosters, the sick child who pulls the wings off flies in each of us - to collectively create the website you absolutely would not want to go to. Popups, grossly NSFW images, midi renditions of "Eye of the Tiger" that won't shut off. Ought to clear the matter up in about a year. Then give it back.
If you're talking about clerical work, typing is absolutely still a necessary skill. Whoever said that employers no longer specify WPM or that 30 WPM is sufficient for most clerical jobs was simply wrong. Read the want ads. I got a typing test at each of the three temp agencies I've worked for and over the last 5 years been administered several typing tests applying for jobs.
It is not a substitute for computer skills. You need both in any modern office job with an emphasis on writing. I don't think typing should be required (I never took it in school, I taught myself to touch type, it ain't rocket science). But it should be offered.
According to the site he went to his employer with the intention of completing the development of the idea, a justification for why it was not covered under what he signed, and a request that they acknowledge that the idea was his own. It appears they first tried to cut a deal (offering to employ him full time working on the idea and pay him a percentage of any savings they realized from its development up to 2 million) then took him to court. Part of the exceptional nature of the case (at least byhis claims) is that there was no invention per se - the invention existed purely in his mind. Basically the rulings against him are saying he must give them the idea - not just turn over work or give them a patent but essentially transmit his thoughts to them regarding whatever he came up with about it.
Legally? Man, I don't have a clue. All the stuff on his site is obviously biased, but one would do well to watch this carefully if they are 1) the kind of person who's likely to be asked this sort of thing and 2) prone to genius ideas. Funny, it's never come up for me...
looks interesting - I'll check it out. Thanks.
I don't actually disagree with you - I think it is inevitable (though the timeline happen when it happens, and books have a bad chicken-and-egg problem as compared to, say, music where you can play your whole CD collection on your iPod) that the book will become something like the LP is now - a specialty product that gives nicer, if ultimately more fragile and less versatile, packaging, and a certain satisfying physicality.
My issue with books and paper is not "romantic" - everything I said about print books was purely pragmatic. This pragmatism does indeed diminish when you're dealing with a monster like Quicksilver (haven't gotten to Confusion yet - but damn, cheaply bound books tick me off). This fellow asked what it was about some currently accessible electronic text formats he didn't like, and I gave some practical reasons.
Believe me: if there was a ruggged, backlit, waterproof device that would display text from a variety of formats with visual quality approximately equal to paper and decent weight and battery life, I'd be there - up to a couple three hundred bucks. I would also still enjoy new and used print books as I enjoy my LPs and 8-tracks now. But I would probably save that for top-quality editions of permanent library stuff, and go purely electronic for more throwaway literature likely to be available only in a cheap mass market editions anyway.
I feel the same way, though in the end it will depend on exactly what the exploit was and what you can manage to do with it. Provided they truly just reverse engineered it and it doesn't let you subvert apple DRM I don't see how it will be illegal even under DMCA.
Of course, being as how I'm just waiting for the right OGG-compatible player to come into the right price range, and how I refuse to buy from iTunes because I hate DRM with all my heart and soul, and that I won't even have any Real product on my machines because I hate them even worse, it is all rather a moot point to me. I don't really see what Real expect to gain out of it, tho, except maybe accelerating the only sensible business strategy for them, namely to go out of business and sell their assets, such as they are, to Apple. Now that you mention it...
I say, finally a real talking point for selling the Segway -
"Segway: it's way cheaper than a horse!"
I think there are actually a lot of very sensible reasons for your preference. printing on paper is a great visual medium. Its visual clarity is at this point superior to any electronic display in the commercial formats you mentioned. A well-designed book using a carefully chosen typeface is a pleasure to read; I am far from the only person decrying the ugly, generic appearance of most computer generated text.
Scrolling sucks. It breaks up the reading experience. Its fiddly. You open a book. You hold it in one hand. You access a whole page of text, then another with the slightest turn of your head. One flip of the page and you're at the next block. It encourages the restful, still, contemplative state that for me is part of what makes reading a pleasure.
You never open a book only to find you have to fiddle the size of the frame to get a full view of the page. You can easily read your book in a large range of light from a large variety of angles. Your book is durable. It can be dropped, squashed, thrown into any bag, thrown at the wall if it ticks you off badly enough, moderately wetted, exposed to quite a lot of heat or cold and any amount of magnetism, and it will continue to function normally.
I think there is an inevitable degree of almost subconscious distraction in using electronic gadgets. Will the battery run down? Will it mysteriously stop working? Will I break it? Accidentally shut it off? With a cell phone, say, or a gameboy I might put up with this because there is simply no substitute for talking on the phone or playing a video game on the bus. With a book, using the old fashioned paper format eliminates every one of these concerns. You almost never think about how your book is working.
Recorded music in general has a little over a century of history behind it. Digital and truly portable music formats, a couple decades. The book (that is to say the codex) appeared in the first century AD. We've had nearly two thousand years to work on the mass production of the book as a useful object. Driving this development, the book has been the primary device for disseminating religious and political ideas. You like books because they work really well at the job they're made to do.