I wrote a post on Laptops, students, and distraction that explains why I forbid laptops in my classes (and the post grew out of a Slashdot comment like this one). From what I've seen, students are better off doing what can be done outside of class outside of class (like reading--which includes PowerPoint) and doing inside class what can't be done outside of class: spontaneous discussion, group questioning/answering/review, and the like.

This seems like the optimal division of time and one that keeps classroom discussions relevant. It also means that not having laptops and cell phones can actually make for a better overall experience.

I can't afford the dead-tree versions of alot of the books I want.

Have you thought about buying them used, either from outfits like Abebooks or Amazon's second-hand market? I ask because those sources are where a lot of my older books come from -- and I read a lot of them.

What they're hoping is that you won't be bothered to go to the used bookstore to get that book. Or even when it is convenient (like Amazon Marketplace), you are too impatient to wait. So far, the sales figures seem to bear this out. Convenience wins.

I wonder how many people actually reread any particular book that they buy. If the answer is "never" or "almost never," then the convenience of eBooks more than makes up for buying them -- since you're only likely to read it once anyway.

Granted, you, the parent commenter, might read many of your books more than once, but if most people don't, the issue is not great for them.

Funny, but once again, fails to RTFA. From said article:

Another possible explanation would be that engineers possess technical skills and architectural know-how that makes them attractive recruits for terrorist organizations. But the recent study found that engineers are just as likely to hold leadership roles within these organizations as they are to be working hands-on with explosives. In any case, their technical expertise may not be that useful, since most of the methods employed in terrorist attacks are rudimentary. It's true that eight of the 25 hijackers on 9/11 were engineers, but it was their experience with box cutters and flight school, not fancy degrees, that counted in the end.

From the Slate article:

Another possible explanation would be that engineers possess technical skills and architectural know-how that makes them attractive recruits for terrorist organizations. But the recent study found that engineers are just as likely to hold leadership roles within these organizations as they are to be working hands-on with explosives. In any case, their technical expertise may not be that useful, since most of the methods employed in terrorist attacks are rudimentary. It's true that eight of the 25 hijackers on 9/11 were engineers, but it was their experience with box cutters and flight school, not fancy degrees, that counted in the end.

Apparently few engineers are actually using their engineering skills in an engineering capacity, which would argue for something else going on. As the article notes, engineers are apparently more religious than their brethren in other majors.

This is the entire point he is trying to make:

This is a subsidiary point in support of a larger point, but Stephenson doesn't explicitly state the larger point because he knows the reader should be able to pick it up. I teach English 101 and 102 at the University of Arizona and use "Turn On, Tune In, Veg Out" in both classes, and it works pretty well at sorting those who can read for slightly sophisticated content for main point and those who can't.

By Neal Stephenson, whoever-in-the-hell that is.

I assume this is a troll, but I'll bite: see Amazon's author page or this hilarious /. interview.

it's just entertainment, for crying out loud.

My generic response is that if we had higher standards collectively, maybe we'd get better entertainment.

My specific response is that Avatar obviously aspires to have a message, whether it be about the eco system, greed, or whatever. So it deserves real criticism.

My third response is that entertainment is almost never just entertainment: it both reinforces, responds to, and creates social and ethical values through the story it presents; see Pierre Bourdieu's book The Field of Cultural Production for more on that topic. To deny that is to allow the thoughts of others as presented in story to replace your own.

I think the above is a troll, but just in case...

Unless you're blind, you've probably noticed that the screens on netbooks are terrible and that the "resolution" of paper is very nice. Most of us wouldn't want to spend eight hours reading a book on a netbook screen but would be more than happy to do so with a paperback. Consequently, the Kindle and Nook are trying to emulate paper rather than computer screens, and they do so fairly well.

I'm a grad student in English lit and have to read a ton of articles and book chapters that are usually distributed as .pdfs. Because of the Nook's native .pdf reading abilities, I'm tempted to get one chiefly for that purpose.

The XKCD blag talks about this too.

Here are a few factoids for you:

I'm glad you followed the Slashdot tradition and provided extensive documentation to back up your outlandish, improbable claims.

I read the title - "Why Movies Are Not Exactly Like Music" - and thought, "If you can't tell the difference, you've got bigger problems than piracy!"

DRM and Price is really a deal breaker, and the idea of rebuying books I already own so I can read them on my ebook reader is a little obnoxious. I love the Idea just hate the execution thus far, but I'm still hopeful for the tech to catch on.

I read a lot -- I'm a grad student in English, and see the /. link to my homepage for my book blog -- so I've paid a lot of attention to eBooks. For me, the DRM is still the big problem, as described in greater detail here. Like you, I find the idea of carrying around every book I've ever read appealing, along with one-click OED lookups. But the DRM is appalling.

That being said, I might try the Nook chiefly for its .pdf ability -- I have to read so many .pdfs that buying one might make sense just for the convenience of not having to print or be tethered to my computer.

Setting aside completely any comparison among the three authors, is there something more intrinsically interesting and valuable, less ephemeral and interchangeable, about a typewriter vs. a computer as an instrument of literary creation?

Who knows? I suspect the answer to be no: we like the physical manifestations and possessions of the famous, as if we'll gain their powers or knowledge by proximity. And for writers, I don't think it matters what OS you use, although I like OS X; it probably doesn't even matter if you use a computer, a typewriter, or a pen: what matters most is your imagination and the power of expression. Everything else is secondary.

That being said, I can see the computers of famous authors one day being of value. For one thing, check out The Guardian's series on writers' rooms. If we're interested in the rooms, I bet we'll be interested in the tools.