Alladin regained: new books for old

In the old story of Alladin, the evil uncle offers new lamps for old in order to get hold of the genie's lamp. Now (the I'm sure anything-but-evil) Sony is offering new books for old, sort of.

We're used to trade-ins on cars, and sometimes on electronic goods or white goods. But for the first time I can recall, Sony is offering a trade in for an old book. Bring in any old tome before 11 July (as they put it 'even a dusty old paperback') and they'll give you a £20 discount at their Sony Centres (and other participating stores) on the Pocket Edition of their ebook reader.

I heard this briefly mentioned in a radio ad, and just had to follow it up. I don't know why, but there's something much more emotive about trading a book in than a car. It's almost as if they had asked you to trade in a family pet. Many of my 'dusty old paperbacks' are old friends I wouldn't want to part with. I've never been one for the 'ebook readers are rubbish, they don't smell like a real book' line. (Perhaps because my sense of smell is terrible.) But there are certainly some books I would be reluctant to part with. Just imagine if this had been a 'get rid of your whole library in exchange for ebook content' deal. That would feel uncomfortable.

Realistically, though, we've all got a few books that we would be happy to part with. That L. Ron Hubbard book Auntie Vi bought you for Christmas ('You do like science, don't you dear?') Or the 23rd cookbook you've added to your shelves but never opened. And as such it's not a bad deal. And to make it more attractive, if you register your reader by 11th July they're throwing in a voucher for up to five ebook titles in 'Love Football' or 'Hate Football' packages. (Is there some football thing happening this summer?)

When I tested ebook readers for Good Housekeeping, I liked the Pocket Edition (though personally I'm sticking to paper and occasional ebooks on my iPhone), so if you are in the market for a reader, you could do worse than turning up at a Sony Centre clutching a Mills and Boon.

Comments

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp...

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5. However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor...

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense...

Search This Blog