Eccentric Flower talk:201002/Two From The Phoenix

Jweader:

The thing about the Bible is that most people who read it aren't just reading it, as in a novel - they're studying it, analyzing it, annotating it, etc. In many ways, the Bible is a "killer app" for e-readers where regular books are not. The ability to have multiple simultaneous translations is awesome. Printed books that do the same thing are too big to be carried around. Links between related or referenced passages? Fantastic - easier than flipping pages (and having to remember that Esther comes after Nehemiah). Annotations by the reader is great, too. Are those redistributable? Imagine being able to get the a pastor's annotations on a particular passage in advance of the next bible study session, have it in-line with the relevant text, and be able to add your own comments as well. Takes bible study and analysis to a whole new level, and yet still readily available to the masses.

The only other area that has anything similar to this type of use potential is in education. Does Cliff's Notes distribute an e-version of Shakespeare with their annotations? My quick search says no, but that would seem to be a space they're missing. Textbook vendors are talking about going all-electronic (which is a whole 'nother topic that I'm not trying to judge one way or the other here); professors could offer their lecture notes as annotations to the e-textbook. And it's all DRM'ed, which is even better for the professor.

Reading a regular book straight through from start to finish on an e-reader? Boooooring.

-- 20:21, 19 February 2010 (GMT)

Columbina:

most people who read it aren't just reading it, as in a novel - they're studying it, analyzing it, annotating it, etc.

This is a point the article goes to some pains to make, and I should have stressed it more.

-- 20:26, 19 February 2010 (GMT)

ProfRobert:

A lot of the Bible is pornographic, with a lot of the focus on snuff stories. So I'd say this story doesn't change the conclusion that porn is the killer app.

-- 23:21, 19 February 2010 (GMT)

Bunny42:

"The Senate is our collective political memory;"

Exactly. I hear arguments lately that we should throw the bums out and start over. How ridiculous. If you think things are bad now, imagine, if you dare, having all new blood, none of whom has the first idea how things work, what's needed or how to get it done. Some of us believe the less government gets "done" the better. But even I shudder at the possibility of not having sane elder statesmen, such as Joe Lieberman, for example, to provide guidance and maintain order over a rowdy bunch of newcomers. The kind of revolution proposed by the Tea Party bunch makes my blood run cold.

That's why I'm also opposed to term limits, for everyone but the president. A guy just gets the hang of how to use whatever power and ability he has to actually make a difference, and hey, presto! He's out, and another neophyte comes in to start over. If an incumbent is making a mess of things, we have the power to get rid of him. On a case-by-case basis. Not a mass execution, please. Thx. Bye.

-- 07:40, 22 February 2010 (GMT)

Joy:

Oh, man, I'm trying not to laugh at the idea of Joe Lieberman being sane. And this is not coming from a partisan place (you'll just have to trust me on this), and I hear you on the collective memory thing.

-- 18:54, 22 February 2010 (GMT)

Danima:

To compensate for laughing along with Joy at picking Lieberman as the exemplar of sanity, I'm going to have to chime in on Bunny's side here about term limits. Term limits don't return power to the people, they channel it to lobbyists. They also take away the incentive for politicians to do good work over time and establish a record to run on in place of the aggressive rhetoric that gets a new officeholder in the first time.

-- 19:49, 22 February 2010 (GMT)

ProfRobert:

I don't think Joe Lieberman is insane. He is, however, an immoral hypocrite ingrate scumbag. He's the Senator from the Insurance Industry. I'm so so so glad Obama has finally grown a pair (a small pair, to be sure, but a pair nonetheless) and has Reid on board to go budget-reconciliation on health care. They're putting the Repugnicans in an awful bind -- they have the opportunity to get provisions they like into the bill, but then they have to vote for it. If they don't, the provisions come out, and the bill becomes whatever the 50 most liberal senators say it is (with the delightful by-product of giving extortionists like Lieberman and Nelson the vicious, no-lube reaming they so richly deserve).

-- 20:28, 22 February 2010 (GMT)

Joy:

Oh, I'm sorry if the opposite of sane was read as insane, because what I meant was what you wrote ProfRobert.

-- 21:58, 22 February 2010 (GMT)