the struggle about ebooks is very interesting. ultimately, what makes a great university is often “merely” a great library. a freer access to books and to knowledge makes a lot of those places insecure in their privilege to be the exclusive, elite producers of knowledge.

“[Google] also deferred to government anger over its plan to digitalize books and apologized to a Chinese author for scanning parts of her book—a step it hasn’t taken in other countries, where it routinely scans books without paying copyright fees”: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704675104575000772033650164.html?mod=rss_Today%27s_Most_Popular

“Google contends that its project complies with copyright law because it only posts snippets of book to the web if it does not have explicit approval from the copyright holder for a complete reproduction. But Chinese authors aren’t the only ones who believe Google has gone too far.” :
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/01/11/googlebooks_and_china/

I recently rediscovered my local small town library this winter, not only to cut down on expenses but also because I just have too many books laying around, in teetering piles and stuffed in closets. A “digital” upgrade has really done it wonders. We can now search online from home for books not only at the library (which has a very modest collection) but also through their statewide inter-library system. There has yet to be a book I couldn’t find – even some obscure titles.

They also will e-mail you when your requests are in and also when you books are due, which can be renewed online. I have yet to have late fees – which were always a problem for me in the past.

I also noticed that the place was really busy when I was there last, and learned that the number of people visiting the library is at record highs – too bad the state just cut their funding.

As for the ‘backward’ – I don’t think it is an either/or matter – we rise or fall together – their knowledge may be spread through various media, even if they elect not to participate directly in it. A more pressing concern is whether these people will survive these system(s) until said system(s) implode sufficiently to no longer be an immediate threat. Also, there is a wide-spread implicit assumption that stepping away from the technology may lead to an improvement, e.g. in ecology (CO2 above regarding google) – unlikely, as we simply have some access to the technology, but the technology is only moderately dependent on our participation – can we achieve more or less by not participating? With e-books, the reader technology may cause more harm in the short term – I recall there was extra violence against people in eastern Congo-Kinshasa to get the tantalum for the capacitors for the playstation 3… Can we use some google searches in a campaign to reduce overall consumption substantially? How much base CO2 is used per unit time by the google infrastructure in the absence of searches? How much CO2 is used by institutional entities in doing google searches?

A dedicated blog, anti-eviction campaign, Africa Files, Video of violence, Centre for civil society, Cynthia McKinney

@Jon
Quite a few foundries have switched to water recycling, due to the water shortages in the midwest USA (where many of them are located); don’t have any references handy on that right now though.

Printed material is less convenient in many ways – bigger, heavier, harder to search – but it’s got a smell and a feel that my Sony PRS-505 never had (it’s dead now which shows another expensive vulnerability), even though the Sony fitted into a backpack with 100+ books and some more related to work on an SD card.

The real e-book issue for me is the yet-to-be-resolved one of DRM and the publishing industry’s preference for massive restrictions on use. Yes, authors deserve to be paid, and I don’t agree with the transcription of HP books even though I’m not interested enough to read them in either format. DRM however is bad for a number of reasons, amongst which it allows someone else to control what you can read, and permits snooping on what you have read.

I don’t have an answer, but I find Charles Stross’s views refreshing – he gives electronic versions of his books away for free and considers them advertising. He claims to have figures to back his views too.

I like to cook. The shelf in the kitchen is filled. I have stacks of cook-books under the living room couch. And then there’s the closet filled with disintegrating pulp. And the shelves of rotting 19th century parlor music. Etc. Oh, and my in-laws house has an entire floor stuffed with books, periodicals, and newsprint, most of which cannot be retrieved without an hour of digging.

So, yeah, an e-reader that I could keep on the counter and search through a few thousand recipes seems ever more attractive. And then a few thousand volumes to peruse while I wait for the bread to rise.

And while I’m at it–if the average car these days contains several dozen microchips, how does that change the “9 or 10 computers equals one car” equation?

But the one big problem for me is what to do with my library, which at the moment is mostly in storage boxes in my shore-based workshop. Don’t much like the ebook idea, though. Apart from the questions which you raise, it just feels like such a transient technology, prone to easy and fatal breakdowns, which, as the Synergising Global Crises start to savage us seriously, will pretty certainly proliferate.

On the other hand, a book, even if severely foxed, can still be read and lent for hundreds of years after its manufacture, as long as it still just about holds together, and remains legible. And it’s also easy to copy, even if your only means of copying is a mediaeval scriptorum with pen and ink.

Think I’ll stick with my Luddite instincts. But good luck with your mini, portable library. Sounds great whilst you have it. Keep those physical books in dry storage somewhere, though, just in case.

And yes, my partner has a small but beautiful land house, and that place is a sweet luxury to me too, a few evenings a week. Compromises, compromises!