Amazon's Kindle

[Shannon, the founder of fun (back from sabbatical)]

Ok so have you all heard the hype about the Kindle? I think I want one, but I'd like to test it out first. Also the price is a little high. I'd like to wait till it hits the $200 price point. ( which will probably be awhile as they are sold out now.) Looks pretty awesome. I enjoy the books but this looks promising.

[Sarah]

Never heard of it. What is it?

[Shannon, the founder of fun (back from sabbatical)]

Ok here is a link to it http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000...

Basically the idea is it is the Ipod for readers. You can download books, newspapers, magazines etc to this device. You don't need a computer for download and the screen is supposed to be paper-like - no glare etc. Currently it is sold out.

I'm a gadget nerd.

[Sarah]

I love gadgets too but I don't know about this one. I just love the smell of ink and the feel of paper between my fingers. I love being able to flip through the pages. I love the way the books look on my shelf. So I don't know about this.

On the other hand, it would be nice to have a totally portable library. No more lugging around 5 books when I travel.

[Sarah]

OK, I just watched the video demonstration and I have to admit, it does look very cool. Brent (my husband) said I could have one for Christmas if that is what I really want, so let's do one of Rory's pro/con lists.

Pro: Hundreds of titles on one device, eliminating need to carry several books around.Con: Hmm, not sure there is a con side to this.

Pro: Most best sellers and new releases are only $9.99, so older books are probably even cheaper. Considering a hard back new release can cost anywhere from $20 to $40, this is a big savings.
Con: You have to pay $400 for the device. OK, are there any math people here? How many books would I need to download for the device to basically pay for itself? Assume the average price of a book is $25.

Pro: Easy shopping. Download any book, newspaper, or magazine in less than a minute with no connection charges or wi-fi.
Con: I LOVE browsing in book stores! As it is now, I buy 90% of my books in the store rather than online, even though online is cheaper, because there is something so soothing about being in a book store.
Con 2: When I got my iPod I found I was buying way too much and spending way too much money because it didn't feel like shopping. I wasn't handing over cash or swiping a card so I wouldn't realize how much I'd spent until I got the receipt. Sometimes, clicking on 10 different albums/books is different than carrying 10 albums/books up to the register. When I have a ginormous stack in my hands I can recognize that I'm going overboard and put a few back. Not so shopping virtually.

Pro: Gadgets are cool! And fun!
Con: Gadgets break. Gadgets are stolen often. Gadgets can sometimes work slowly and I am very impatient.

Anyone want to add to this list?

[Shannon, the founder of fun (back from sabbatical)]

Nice Pro/Con list.

Pro: You'll be one of the first with the new gadget.
Con: You'll be one of the first with the new gadget. Which usually means you'll deal with any glitches, etc. that are bound to pop up.

That's my big pro/con on not having it - yet anyways. I usually like to wait a year on technology because 1) the price will usually drop quite a bit 2) most user issues are worked out in that amount of time.

I will definitely be watching this device though And if you do get one Sarah - I will be totally envious!!

[Sarah]

I agree, the price will probably drop. And glitches and issues bother me. That was what I was thinking with that last one on the list.

[Sera]

Although this device sounds very cool, there is nothing like having a good book to read. I agree with the post that the smell and the feel of the pages of the book can't be replicated with a new device. Also, I would lose my mind if I stopped shopping for books the old brick and mortar way. I have a used book store five minutes from my office, and I go there at least three times a week to browse. I try not to buy, but it's so difficult. Nevertheless, I always feel great when I leave and go back to the office. It's like detoxing for me.

If you do get it (or anyone else does), let us know how you like it.

[whichwaydidshego, the sage of sass]

I had the option several years back with a top-of-the-line PDA I had that had the book option. I hated it. You don't get to SEE how far you've read and feel that accomplishment... you don't have that trophy to put up on your shelf when you are done. You can't easily flip through what you've read and see the portions you underlined and re-appreciate them.

I got it because of my lifestyle of travel and my firm belief in "less is more" and "smaller is better" (partially a result of this lifestyle). But I tell you what, I will choose to be like Rory and carry the weight and cumbersome size of multiple books any day over a gadget... that could run out of battery life right when I most want it. Plus, looking at a screen like that all the time is soooo bad for your eyes.

I too like the feel of the pages and the ability to look ahead - without reading - to the possibilities of what is next then rushing through to find out! I like closing it and having the cover in front of me to tempt me more. I like having several lying around or in my satchel to tempt me. A gadget wouldn't have the temptation power a book does with it's cover and pages.

Now don't get me wrong, I LOVE gadgets! But I love books FAR more!!!

[whichwaydidshego, the sage of sass]

I just looked at it, and admittedly it is cool... but not really tempting. Did you notice that the screen is gray in background? And it doesn't look like it has a color display. On the cool side, having constant wireless access to their site as well as wikipedia is nice (and smart business on their side). But a book... is a book. Sigh. Such a lovely thing!

[Sarah]

About the screen... they say it's not any worse on your eyes than actual paper. It isn't backlit and the font is the same as a printed page. And it is in color, I watched the demonstration video and they showed the shopping site and the pictures were in color. The gray background you saw was probably a page in a book.

[Meghan]

Pro: You can read this in the dark
Con: You'll be up even later finishing that "last" chapter

Con: No pages to turn

Con: No book smell

Con: You can't show off your impressive library to friends.

Pro: Friends can't "steal" your books when they ask to "borrow" one! (As in there are no more books to lend to people.)

I would think if you traveled a lot, this would be great.

I'd have a hard time though choosing which ones to download and which to buy. But perhaps it's like movies/dvds. There are movies I want to watch (so I buy them on pay-per-view) and there are movies I want to keep (so I buy the dvd).

[Meghan]

Con: You can curl up with a good "gadget" on a stormy day.

But as I'm an extreme gadget girl, I probably will ask for this for my birthday. Sigh.

[Sarah]

OK, then, I can wait a couple months and let you be the guinea pig. If you like it, let me know. And I'd think this would be a really good one for you, as you wouldn't have to pack multiple books when you cruise.

[whichwaydidshego, the sage of sass]

Sorry, it just doesn't do it for me... even with all my travels (and my travels aren't cruising - where you have a place to keep all your stuff - but hosteling). Plus... imagine if it got stolen or lost! You'd loose ALL your books!

Also on travels it's fun to exchange with other travelers. It's a neat connection.

Then there is the whole glitch factor. My first mini-shuffle had some serious issues... most "firsts" do. Plus I can already download books in gadgets I already own... smaller gadgets... I think I'd choose that over carrying another one.

But like I said, a book... is a book. That is to say a beautiful thing with all that wonder wrapped up in it's pages and cover.

[Sarah]

Michele, you wouldn't lose anything. Everything you buy is automatically backed up at amazon.com.

[Dottie]

I just cracked myself up reading your post Sarah -- child of the 50's and the Cold War era that I am -- I immediately thought -- "oh goody Big Brother is keeping track of what I'm reading" -- big CON as far as I am concerned since I already have that thought oftentimes as I post and list and order online -- can't help it, damn, I was a good student and I am well trained in looking over my shoulder to see if "they" are really checking up on me.

Of course all you sweet young things are thinking -- what a silly idea! Different eras, my dears -- hee-hee.

[whichwaydidshego, the sage of sass]

Oh my gosh, Dottie! I'm totally with you! I mean the government has admitted to logging all that sort of info! It's amazing what can go against you if something goes wrong in your life... especially now with the Patriot Act. Geez. What am I doing listing my library here??? (Well, part of it.)

I was discussing the other day how really strange it is that kids in college now have no idea of the mentality that there is a definite good and a definite evil in the world. They never had that eminent threat, that undercurrent fear that pervades all aspects of life. That possibility of world annihilation... I think it's really going to effect, and indeed already has, the milk-toast politics of today. But beyond that, how strange to not truly, personally understand the risks and costs of freedom... of the battle that actually is. And as a result not to feel that deep gratitude for it.

Sorry. It's a recent realization that fascinates me... the different world views within our culture, not to mention within other cultures, deeply interests me. I'm really not a conspiracy theorist (though I like the idea of them!).

Oh, and Sarah... I concede. I won't argue this gadget's merits. But for me, it's not a book. I like the tactile aspect of anxiously turning a page with excited anticipation or even the communal aspect when someone connects with you because of the book you are carrying/reading.

It does remind me of something Jasper Fforde might think up for one of his worlds, though! But in his I think it would have pages that could be turned where the words from different books would appear as you wanted them...

[Sarah]

Don't you think that after September 11, college students understand that there is a definite good and a definite evil and a price for freedom?

I know, I love real books too. That's one reason I hesitate to get a kindle. But I also love gadgets.

I wonder what Thursday would think.

[brian]

no, sarah, i don't think that students get it... trust has been so eroded in what our politicians say and do (with good reason) that young people, i believe, don't know what to think. moreover, this intense partisan polarization results in the sean hannity crowd oversimplifying and morphing all arabs into islamic fundamentalists and the michael moore crowd denying that a threat even exists. both sides are moronic.

beneath all this runs a more important question though: is there, as bush defines it, and you asked about, a definite good and a definite evil? or do we look to kissinger in which all are neutral elements or chess pieces that must be played only so as to encourage stability? is it helpful to reduce it all (iran, iraq, america, england, syria, israel, etc) to either good and evil? or is that harmful? and the price for freedom is what exactly? to me, the founding fathers' whole philosophy could be summed up in patrick henry's words: 'give me liberty or give me death' -- i gather they'd rather get blown up by the enemy than see an america in which the government watches our every step... i think it was james madison who pointed out that the demise of the nation would come from within - from her own citizens - before it came from an external enemy...

[whichwaydidshego, the sage of sass]

To your first statement, no. Not a definite, because you don't know exactly who it could be. In that confusion, you loose the unity of a common, known enemy as well as a definitive tool... It isn't a pervasive attitude or a knowing that at any moment a single decision could start a global war that could effectively end the world (mar the earth and take out humanity... not the cockroaches, of course) with it's fall out.

Of course they know of evil and its effects, but they don't have that absolute knowing as a part of their existence that it is tangible. Absolute.

As to the price for freedom, yes... perhaps I was overstating there. But in the conversations I've had with the younger generation, it is shocking how many still don't see that.

But that could be a result of where I live, too.

I love Thursday. The ultimate heroine for book lovers everywhere! Ooooo! I should put her on my heroes list on myspace! Tee-hee!

[whichwaydidshego, the sage of sass]

In saying what I did, I wasn't saying it was right to see the world so black and white. Just that it is fascinating the extreme difference in world views.

Brian, really, REALLY good discussion. I heartily agree that both sides are moronic. And I think there are layers in each society that must be understood and approached in order to find the good and (hopefully) root out the evil in each. But don't you think that as with the political extremes, so too the absolute good and absolute evil in world politics is as wrong as a complete neutrality?

For instance, I find maintaining a neutral stance, and shuffling those pieces to stay in the game, appalling in the face of such evil as Hitler... or even modern genocides. Look at Turkey and what they did to the Armenians without any recompense (thus far) to speak of. Appalling that the world simply sat by and let it go on for years.

[brian]

of course, of course... i'm not talking about wishy-washy relativism. we MUST declare certain things evil. hitler, of course, or al-qaeda of course. there is much that is pure evil and there is much -- my dog, for one -- that is pure good.

my point is simply this: saddam was a murderous evil butcher. he deserved to die. but... kissinger would (and, i believe, did) argue that iraq was a bulwark against a greater evil: iran. with iraq gone, their closest enemy, iran, would become much more emboldened and much more powerful. in many respects, this has proven true. moreover, was the price paid (domestic instability, the death of U.S. troops, the civilian casualities over there, the decreased prestige and morale of the country) worth eliminating the evil? if one could create an 'evil calculas' was it definitely worth it to get rid of a genocidal maniac like saddam for the current state of affairs? is it moral or immoral to compare saddam's victims vs. the civilian casualties as a result of our occupation and bombs? i can't answer this stuff with authority... and am highly suspicious of those who claim to.

[Tosh]

I think we could live with 'evil' like Saddam. When you get down to it he was a gangster more than anything else - and as a gangster the U.S. should have been confortable with such a personality. It wasn't moral reasons why we helped to get rid of him. The truth is that there is pure good and pure evil in everyone. And your dog has a sense of darkness lurking in its soul my dear chap.

[whichwaydidshego, the sage of sass]

It is wise to be suspicious of anyone who speaks in absolutes... particularly regarding such issues. But are we to value the lives of our citizens more than theirs? I am not disagreeing with your position, only questioning the curricula in your "calculus." I agree the price paid, as you laid out, is extremely high and leaves us now in a tenuous situation. However, we can never know which would have been a better/less costly course. We only have the one chosen... and either way I believe we would have endlessly questioned it. Perhaps rightly so.

We all knew that Iraq was indeed a bulwark against Iran - this explains why we stopped short of killing him in the Gulf War - but how unstable had that bulwark become? Had it actually become a false front? I do certainly, and did then, question the motivation for going after Saddam at that time.

The evil that man exuded and engendered was horrendous on far too many levels - he certainly needed to have his back broken and needed to be held accountable for his actions. But could we not have first aligned things so that the sacrifice was not so ongoing; so great? I suppose I am now arguing Kissinger's ideology and your position! LOL I'm just so enjoying the discussion... though it is an odd thread to have usurped!

[brian]

NO! my dog is perfect. no evil. no!

read samantha powers A PROBLEM FROM HELL and call saddam a mere gangster. he murdered upwards of 100,000 innocent kurds with poisonous gas and untold thousands more in his torture chambers and rape rooms.

and it does seem a sad but very true fact that guys like saddam are everywhere. a genocide is happening, as we all know, in the sudan right now and there's not a shot we'll help out. interesting to imagine if we'd play the sidelines if their chief export was oil? or if iraq's was bananas rather than oil? hmmm...

what is interesting is that the liberals of yesterday were fierce anti-fascists and all about intervention while the conservatives were all about american isolationism and letting the world sort out their own problems... today it's the total opposite. strange how things change...

[brian]

but tosh is right about one thing: we did not go after saddam on moral grounds. if this was true we'd have ousted him in the 80's rather than hang with him. and we'd refuse to deal with the saudis or syrians or chinese today. or most african heads of state. but this is highly unrealistic. as tommy jefferson pointed out 200 years back: a country only acts in its own self interest. that applies to us as much as iran or england or iraq. saddam was as evil as they come, but let's not kid ourselves... he's gone because we wanted a foothold in the middle east. not because he killed the kurds 15 years back.

[whichwaydidshego, the sage of sass]

Tosh, I don't think I could have lived much longer with evil like Saddam. But I'm a woman who dealt with female refugees from his regime... the few that managed to get out. Without even considering his mass-murderous ways, I don't believe I could have done. The oppression, the torture, the viciousness he demanded in his "culture" was beyond reason. I don't think that that sort of evil needs quotes - it truly is just that... evil.

[brian]

by that standard, though, we should be in iran and sudan and syria and egypt and saudi arabia and liberia and north korea (amongst many others) tomorrow? don't you think?

[whichwaydidshego, the sage of sass]

Brian, I've thought about that a lot recently... "...the liberals of yesterday were fierce anti-fascists and all about intervention while the conservatives were all about american isolationism and letting the world sort out their own problems..." Having lived in Washington, D.C. as well as in Europe, I gained an odd perspective at times. I found it fascinating to see how our partisan politics have remained polar opposites while so greatly shifting their positions - and in more than just this one way.

[whichwaydidshego, the sage of sass]

Probably so, Brian. I understand your point... where does it stop, this world-policing. I suppose I was just too emotionally close to this situation having worked with those women. I regret our current situation, yet cannot bemoan our actions because of what saw and know.

[Tosh]

I think we are talking about America via the 20th Century. America via the 21st Century really could care less what is evil or not evil. It is about whatever that country can produce for us - if we can get to it. Also I think the U.S. will decline in the 21st Century. The lost of empire, like the U.K will just make it into some sort of a large Island of sorts.

If they would have tried to get Saddam on a legal case, although it would have taken years, I think there might have been a shot at some form of justice. Nevertheless when you start sending troops in - it's becomes a different issue. I don't mind saying 'hey this is morally wrong, and we should do something about it." And then proceed via various outlets that are out there - but to destroy property, people is usually not the right way to make 'positive' change in that country in my opinion.

[Sarah]

Brian... I think Tosh is stalking you...

[brian]

yeah, this is a problem i've had to deal with for years. as soon as tosh's wife goes out of town, he's at my door every night. creepy.

[Shannon, the founder of fun (back from sabbatical)]

I know we're discussing good and evil here, but wanted to add that the invasion of Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with helping out anybody - except ourselves(or some certain persons with vested interest in securing the "natural resources") I think there is little denying the true intent after the Declaration of Principles for a Long-Term Relationship of Cooperation and Friendship Between the Republic of Iraq and the United States of America was signed Monday. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releas...

Which essentially is a treaty and illegal without the ratification of Congress. Breaking the law never seems to be an issue for this administration. I wish for once Congress would grow some balls and start protecting the laws they've created.

[Sarah]

I'm wondering if maybe we shouldn't shelve the political talk while we're all still friends. Otherwise I may be forced to point out that breaking the law certainly wasn't a problem for the previous administration.

[Alison, the guru of grace]

Hey Tosh, are you still there? You need to vote by midnight. We need some more testosterone in this group.

[Shannon, the founder of fun (back from sabbatical)]

Ok, I'll play nicely. But if you'd like to take a few stabs at the previous administration I don't really care I shan't be supporting Ms. Clinton.

[brian]

they ALL break the law. it's a question of magnitude.

i have no great affection for clinton, but to compare his lawbreaking to bush's is a bit absurd, huh? state-sanctioned torture and the loss of habeus corpus alone...

how any so called conservative (which bush clearly is not) could continue to support bush through the wild expansion of executive power and the trampling of the constitution proves the sheer insanity of partisan politics...

but, okay... let's play nice. :-)

[Sarah]

I'm just saying, I've been invovled in other online forums where politics (and religion) discussions started out friendly enough. Then they went from discussion to debate to argument to fight to war, and I like all of you too much to want that to happen here. But, Shannon, you're the moderator, so it's your decision.

[Shannon, the founder of fun (back from sabbatical)]

Totally still playing nice here - I agree wholeheartedly with your comments Brian.

How insane would it be if this group picked out some intensely politically charged book? Um may I suggest the Hillary Clinton book on the rory list. hahaha! I have a feeling that one will never get chosen ;)

[Shannon, the founder of fun (back from sabbatical)]

I generally agree that we should try to keep politics and religion out of the discussion boards - unless it's relevant to a book we're discussing. There is too much potential for it to blow up into something real nasty.

[brian]

was it paris or rory who had a michael moore poster in her room? imagine if we picked one of his books? insanity! the arguments would spill over into every thread in this club...

[Sarah]

Lane had a Farenheit 911 poster in her room once she moved in with the band members. But I think Rory had one at one time too.

And if the Hillary book (or any Moore book, for that matter) were picked by the group, some of us (ahem: me) could just choose not to read it that month and avoid the threads like the plague. LOL.

I enjoy a spirited debate as much as the next person but something about the relative anonymity of message boards gives people the impression that they don't have to be nice. Like they're not talking to "real" people or something. Add that to the difficulty of discerning a poster's tone through the typed messages and you've got a recipe for disaster.

[Shannon, the founder of fun (back from sabbatical)]

I think it was Paris, but it was shown a lot over the seasons in different places and after moves even. I think Amy was trying to tell us something.........

I myself am definitely not a Michael Moore fan. I wish he would have tried to take a more even approach to some of his documentaries. He has good points sometimes but they get lost when he distorts facts himself. I plan on watching Sicko sometime.

[Alison, the guru of grace]

I think Rory & Paris had a big PRO CHOICE poster in their room at Yale, too (or something to that effect). (That is not an intro to a discussion, believe me!! Haha.) I guess the writers got their messages across via the characters. Or maybe that's just something they felt Rory would feel strongly about. They did create her, so they would know.

[whichwaydidshego, the sage of sass]

Whatever side we are on, free expression is a wonderful thing (one I am sure we are all grateful for)... But Sarah is right, when it comes to politics let's be reserved on such freedoms here on these boards. In saying that, I'll readily take my knocks and apologize for basically starting and inflaming this entire subject!

There is so much to talk about regarding the books and the show and pop-culture and even our lives as we become friends... let's ALL truly play nice (without first putting in our two cents, tempting as that is)... especially us moderators!

Sorry all!

[Dottie]

Oh no -- Michelle -- I can't let you take ALL the blame because I triggered all this and all I intended was to be flippant about the age discrepancy I feel when I drop in and enjoy all the banter and fun here. I forgot that today's politics is a bit scary around the edges just as in the Cold War days -- so politics aside, please.

And now back to the Kindle -- I wonder if they chose that so it would seem warm and fuzzy and comforting just as in a kindle of kittens -- awwwwww. Well I'd have to look it over but it sounds similar in some ways to a gadget hubby seriously considered getting me some years back.

[Meghan]

I absolutely agree with you Brian on the whole Iraq/Hussein issue.

But along your thoughts of Iraq being a bulwark to Iran. How about Afghanistan? With the Taliban gone, there is now a surplus supply of it in the world--meaning there is more than can meet demand. Why? Because the Taliban forbade drug use and cracked down hard on drug traders. Now that the Taliban is gone, drug trafficking is way, way up. So where is the balance? How do you eliminate one bad thing only to be replaced by something equally terrible?

And isn't that what Bush is trying (and failing) to accomplish with his so called 'axis of evil.' We used to have a wonderful black-and-white enemy during the Cold War. Communists were evil. The Soviets could not be trusted. Get your bomb shelters ready! Nowadays, how really are teenagers/young adults suppose to believe in absolutes when there are no absolutes? Terrorists don't exist in one country. We can't say "let's train our nuclear bombs at Afghanistan or Iraq" because it's not that country's government we're fighting against. It's a radical group that has no home, no location, and can hit you anywhere...at the airport, movie theater, subway. It's a much more complicated world, and so I think, it's harder for these kids. And quite frankly, no one's really helping teach them anything either.

[Meghan]

Sorry...I totally missed a whole page of comments where it said we were not talking about politics.

And just so I can say my little piece...I totally understand not wanting to offend people. I have been personally banned by some of my friends from discussing politics because it causes too many "uncomfortable" feelings for those around me. I don't get offended, but I understand that everyone is not me.

But that said, I love this thread and what people were saying, whether I agreed with them or not. I think this is exactly something that Palladino would have loved to jump in on (and did in her own subtle ways on GG). I will follow whatever the rules are laid by the moderators, but we should not be afraid to discuss politics here, or any topic really.