Cliffs of Moher in the distance.
eReading vs pReading
Latest from the Pew Internet project.
The population of e-book readers is growing. In the past year, the number of those who read e-books increased from 16% of all Americans ages 16 and older to 23%. At the same time, the number of those who read printed books in the previous 12 months fell from 72% of the population ages 16 and older to 67%.
Overall, the number of book readers in late 2012 was 75% of the population ages 16 and older, a small and statistically insignificant decline from 78% in late 2011.
The move toward e-book reading coincides with an increase in ownership of electronic book reading devices. In all, the number of owners of either a tablet computer or e-book reading device such as a Kindle or Nook grew from 18% in late 2011 to 33% in late 2012. As of November 2012, some 25% of Americans ages 16 and older own tablet computers such as iPads or Kindle Fires, up from 10% who owned tablets in late 2011. And in late 2012 19% of Americans ages 16 and older own e-book reading devices such as Kindles and Nooks, compared with 10% who owned such devices at the same time last year.
Eye say
Holiday reading
One of the really nice things about Christmas is that the phone stops ringing and the tide of work-related email recedes, leaving time for reading. Here’s what’s I’m into just now:
Artemis Cooper’s biography
Sebastian Seung’s Connectome: How the Brain’s Wiring Makes Us Who We Are
Larry Lessig’s new book, Republic, Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress – and a Plan to Stop It
Age of Fracture
Too much brandy!
Shortly after the cake had been iced, we noticed that Tux had gently subsided onto his back. “Hmmm…”, said the lovely maker of the cake, “I must have put too much brandy in it.”
Happy Christmas to any readers who happen to be passing by.
LinkedIn nonsense
You know the old joke.
First man: I’m on LinkedIn!”
Second man: “Really? I didn’t know you were looking for a job.”
I’m on LinkedIn not because I’m looking for a job (I already have too many of those) but because I feel that if one writes about this stuff then one should experience it. For a long time, my LinkedIn membership did not have too many annoying side-effects — beyond the occasional idiotic request from complete strangers for a “connection”. But recently I’ve been getting emails from LinkedIn telling me that various friends have “endorsed” me. This is annoying and embarrassing because I haven’t asked anybody for ‘endorsement’, and so I feel I should write to them and apologise. But, it being Christmas, I have had other things to so. So this is to say to all my LinkedIn contacts: I’m sorry you’ve been troubled by this idiotic attempt by LinkedIn to drum up business.
LATER: Turns out that I’m not the only person to be annoyed by this. Here’s something from The Inquirer, for instance:
Many Linkedin users have taken to the professional network to air their complaints about Endorsements.
“As an employer, I don’t think that I’d want to hear an opinion on someone’s abilities that hadn’t been carefully thought out. What would be the point?” one noted on a Linkedin forum.
“As the feature stands, it’s really just eye-candy for Linkedin, perhaps catching the attention of an employer but quickly fading away under detailed scrutiny.”
Another complained, “I think the endorsements are silly. It’s like ‘recommendation lite’. If you want to recommend somebody, take the time to write one. I am making it a practice not to endorse any skill that I haven’t had the opportunity to see someone demonstrate.”
Some could see value if the feature was used in a certain way.
“I would say this is a great way to endorse someone you know and whom you have worked with,” said one user. “I make it a point to endorse ONLY the person whom I know and worked with closely, also ONLY on the skills I know he has contributed, in my professional association with him.”
Spot on.
STILL LATER: This from Laura James.
EVEN LATER: Nice post by Quentin.
Joe Schumpeter and the truth about technology
This morning’s Observer column.
Pondering the role of entrepreneurship and innovation in this process, Schumpeter argued that capitalism renews itself in periodic waves of traumatic upheaval. He was not the first to have this idea, but he was the first to come up with a memorable term for the process: Schumpeter called them waves of “creative destruction”.
We’re living through one such wave at the moment, but our public discourse about it is lopsided. That’s because the narrative tends to be dominated by enthusiasts and evangelists, by people who, like the “cybertheorists” Poole detests, tend to focus on the creative side of the Schumpeterian wave. At the same time, people who are sceptical or fearful about the new technology tend to be labelled – and sometimes derided – as luddites or technophobes.
The trouble is that Schumpeter meant what he said: innovation is a double-edged sword.
So who will control the Net, in the end?
My comment piece in this morning’s Observer.
It’s all about control. Of course, nobody uses that particular term. The talk is always about “governance” or “regulation”, but really it’s about control. Ever since the internet burst into public consciousness in 1993, the big question has been whether the most disruptive communications technology since print would be captured by the established power structures – nation states and giant corporations – that dominate our world and shape its development. And since then, virtually every newsworthy event in the evolution of the network has really just been another skirmish in the ongoing war to control the internet.
This year closed with two such skirmishes.
The N.R.A. Protection Racket
Good OpEd piece by Richard Painter in today’s NYTimes.
The most blatant protection racket is orchestrated by the National Rifle Association, which is ruthless against candidates who are tempted to stray from its view that all gun regulations are pure evil. Debra Maggart, a Republican leader in the Tennessee House of Representatives, was one of its most recent victims. The N.R.A. spent around $100,000 to defeat her in the primary, because she would not support a bill that would have allowed people to keep guns locked in their cars on private property without the property owner’s consent.The message to Republicans is clear: “We will help you get elected and protect your seat from Democrats. We will spend millions on ads that make your opponent look worse than the average holdup man robbing a liquor store. In return, we expect you to oppose any laws that regulate guns. These include laws requiring handgun registration, meaningful background checks on purchasers, limiting the right to carry concealed weapons, limiting access to semiautomatic weapons or anything else that would diminish the firepower available to anybody who wants it. And if you don’t comply, we will load our weapons and direct everything in our arsenal at you in the next Republican primary.”
