An enjoyable read. I don't disagree with the conclusions.

Thanks, Natural! I appreciate you interest and your comments.

May I ask, Steven, what your experience has been getting published?

Although I haven't really gone anywhere with it yet (partly due to ADHD, unfortunately; partly due to excessive self-doubts), I've been 'planning' to write SF since I was 12, and I still am. I know that's a common line of a lot of people who aren't really serious, but whatever, it's still a major life goal of mine.

So, I'm curious, did you try to go with a major SF publisher, or did you already know Bluroof, or something? What kind of circulation are you expecting? Will I be able to find it in Canadian bookstores (aside from online)?

Read your essay, and the responses...

Excellent.

Tiny quibble with "deeply informed by my atheism". 

I would say just "deeply informed'. Perhaps by your wide experience and research.

Your atheism has prevented you from being deeply misinformed by religious doctrines/claims...

I would be interested in reading the book on my iPad.

Bob -- I like your quibble very much!

And thanks for the kind words, they are much appreciated.

And I love your list of oxymorons. In regard to "Business Ethics," may I suggest my essay, Nothing Personal, It’s Just Business: On the Amorality of Business, which is on my blog at: http://stevenpaulleivasthisnthat.blogspot.com/2011/02/nothing-personal-its-just-business-on.html  You might find it interesting, possibly amusing.

Hope you enjoy Traveling in Space!

 I am a huge sci-fi fan and seeing ourselves from the alien point of view is my most favorite theme in the books. And my Kindle is hungry. So now I'm risking missing the train, please be considerate

So basically, I think most people are willfully ignorant. They are not interested and you need interest to cure ignorance. Nothing else is strong enough, than interest in truth, whatever it turns out to be. But people can be educated, because they're driven to conform with the whatever is happening to them. They're malleable enough to accept evolution and hygiene in countries, where it's a standard, even though left alone they wouldn't keep with it. (the hygiene, at least)

But even if I'm not really interested, I can appreciate second-handed facts about the subject. I don't understand Shakespeare's english at all, but I know he created some most common english words today. As for classical music or whatever, there are supposed to be some interesting mathemathical variations in it, though it sounds like chaotic crap. (maybe that's why)

The interest in learning is something we should cultivate. Intellect is impartial, it bridges the gaps of likes and dislikes. Forced learning kills interest. Intellect knows, that false beliefs are worthless, so all beliefs must be questioned. We can mourn for lost beliefs, but we should rejoice for a gained truth. And each one of us can work as a grain of sand in filter of truth, stopping what we found false and letting through what we found as true and why. Now, that is a good subject for education of masses.

This book is bloody brilliant, anyone else reading it?  I haven't been able to look away now up to page 60, now I have to go to work, damb. 

Edit:  Client cancelled, back to reading...  I have to say I love the angle of this book.  I definetly recommend it you guys should read it.

p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

OK, got the book. Looking at it now. The introductions are looking like you took a rather different road than most, although I have read a few things that were along those lines.

Harry Turtledove, David Brin and Greg Bear have all done that with captivating results.

Natural, it is obvious that you are a talented writer. But I have to agree with the OP on this one. I have a few pieces self published on my own. You need to get started. If you don't have an outline already in mind, then fan fiction could be a start for you. There are a few authors who try to forbid it but most realize that it is coming from folks who love their work and pay for everything that comes out.

I have a series set in the Marvel comics universe. Specifically the sub-universe of the 70's TV series for The Incredible Hulk. I have totally ripped the universe apart and it is on the internet. Stan Lee has yet to raise a fuss.

Of course, he could not use my material even if he wanted to make me rich because I have done too much to the world. In the opening story, Jack McGee finds out who the hulk is but not before becoming a muntant monster himself. He has hulk level telekinesis but he can't control it.

So he is now on the run with David/Bruce. The secret government agency who kidnapped him and did non-consent medical experiments on him wants him back. Adding to the complexity, there are multiple secret agencies making people with super powers and most of the resulting people tend toward moral ambiguity.

One is Steven King's “The Shop” and another is as yet unnamed but British. The Brits made a coercive telepath. On one mission, he was being tortured whe he broadcast a stop order. Everyone within several hundred feet died. When the SAS showed up to pull him out, they could not get anywhere near him without getting in the field. They had to call America to get a Shop trained empath just to get an IV line in him. Now those two are permanently psychically bonded. They got wind of the experiment that gave Jack McGee his powers and are now trying to chase him down as well.

Because I am already series crossing, the door is open to other ideas. I am thinking of having Sam from Quantuum Leap switch places with David. Major poetry on that one because they were both research scientists who used themselves as experimental subjects without checking with anyone.

In episode two, there is a scene where Jack is asking David how the hulk came about. When David tells Jack that it was an accidental overdose of radiation, Jack, being the snarky ass that he is, responds that it was obviously an accident. After all, nobody would sit in a chair and do it intentionally.

This is major stress for David because that is exactly the stupid stunt that he did. If David gets too much stress, we all know what can happen and I wrote it in first person perspective. From both him and the hulk.

Also, I stand accused in the fan community of overusing orange juice to treat clinical dehydrations. It wasn't my falut though. It came up in a valid context and I had forgotten that it was what David drank the morning after the first hulk incident.

 Thanks, Sapient -- I love being among intelligent people!

 Hey, NoMoreCrazyPeople!  Many thanks for your more than kind first reaction to Traveling in Space. I was thrilled to read your words -- and my publisher was double thrilled.  Indeed he as a question for you, so is it possible for you to email at [email protected] so that I may convey his question?

Again, many thanks!

Just wanted to let everybody here know that I will be a guest on The Ardent Atheist, Emery Emery's  internet radio show on October 26th talking about Traveling in Space and matters of atheism, faith, rationality and -- of course -- it's opposite!

If you haven't checked out this show yet, I highly recommend it. It covers many of the issues of interest to all of us, with the added benefit that, being hosted by a stand up comic and with many top flight comics as guests -- it's damn funny!

You can check it out here= http://ardentatheist.com/

Best to all,

I finally got an App for my iPad that can display books in PDF format in a convenient reading presentation. Surprised it didn't just 'do it' but the other eBook Apps all want the the files in more dedicated eBook formats.

So now I can read it whenever I have a free time, without have to even carry my laptop.

 Many thanks, Luminon, for the kind words.  I am thrilled you liked Traveling in Space!  I will soon be posting the amazon link to the book, so if you are willing, it would be great if you could post a reader review on that page. It's not up yet as we are waiting for the last illustration for the book to come in from illustrator Todd Cronin.

Again, many thanks, and many kind regards,

Steven

I have absolutely no problem reading stuff on my Pad rather than on real paper-and-ink, so how could an eInk device look better than a real book?

I just don't need another device to carry around, which does less, can't properly display color images, or video (which is increasingly being included in e-books and magazines), and is almost as good as ink on paper in displaying print. I do read books, if that is all that is available, but I don't prefer them. Much easier to have an iPad with me which not only lets me read books, but watch videos in decent quality, look at and show others my photos, etc. 

The only things e-ink has going for it is the ability to be read easily in full sunlight, and lower battery consumption. Neither are insignificant, but don't compensate for the other limitations, for me anyway.

p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

Right, everyone has different needs. I use andriod myself. From what I gather, the screen is similar to an ipad. But the form factor is one that I can carry in a pocket.

It has many apps stores, so I am free from apple deciding what is legitimate. It can be turned off and not just put in standby, so the battery life is really good. It has a 500GB hard drive. It can play music in DRM free formats such as OGG, which is important to me as my 20+year collection of CDs was already ripped to that format.

I just had a look at the book on my iPad with the sun shining straight onto the screen. Perfectly readable.

Now tell me why I should get an e-Ink device again?

I could not read this book on an e-ink Kindle. A lower res, physically smaller screen displaying those pages would be hopeless for me.

I would have to enlarge them, and then scroll on each page. It would be better even on my iPhone4, with the help of slightlly stronger than my usual spectacles, since it has more pixels than the Kindle.

OK, that's better than the Kindle, and 17% larger pixel density than my iPad, at 1200 X 825, compared to iPad at 1024 x 768. Not a dramatically higher resolution, but probably enough to be noticeable.

The contrast of e-ink was originally not so good, but I understand it is now comparable to print on good paper, but that really is not a factor that concerns me much.

The whole point of e-ink is to be as good or better than high quality ink on real paper. I have read many books. So I have an idea what they are supposed to look like...

Another 'problem' claimed for LCD displays is flicker. Quality, properly adjusted LCD displays do not flicker to any noticeable extent. I can detect absolutely no problem with mine either on my notebook or my iPad.

I am not denying that that e-ink is great for reading books, maybe with only line-drawing, black-and-white illustrations.

The release version of the book referred to in this thread is going to have illustrations, so that would be a negative for current e-ink.

Some classics I have on my iPad - the Complete Works of Shakespeare, Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, for example - include color images, contemporary portraits of Shakespeare in one case, illustrations from the story in the other case, which would not be good in 16 level gray-scale, I don't think.

People do claim eyestrain from backlit LCD. I have never been aware of this personally.

As I said, my iPad is perfectly readable in direct sunlight.

All I need in a reader is that it be readable without noticeable difficulty or distraction under all conditions I may be using it, which this iPad is. Throw in quality picture display, and it is fine for any book or magazine. Throw in video, it also allows me to watch movies in good quality and sound (with headphones) while riding a bus, train, or plane. And then I can browse the Web. All without carrying yet another device. 

And 10-hour battery life is certainly less than a dedicated e-ink reader, but not a big practical problem for me. Pretty much everything I want to have with me on travelling needs recharging - cell-phone, camera, laptop - so I will normally have access to power at least often enough to keep me going. 

I don't want to make a big issue of this, just making it clear that my iPad suits me fine for reading, as well as all the other things it does.

Color capable e-readers are now my preferred medium for books, since they combine the features of printed books with searchability. My second choice would be audio-books, since I can listen while walking, cycling, shopping, etc. They aren't currently searchable, so that is my main problem with them. If I want to check up on some earlier event in the narrative for some details I may have missed or forgotten, e-books are the best, audio the worst.

Simply I had the possibility to use an e-ink device and a ipad, I found both of them very impressive (maybe it's because I don't have in my hands these "modern devices", don't know), and now I can draw my conclusions. In the book reading business, e-ink could be overtook only by oleds. E-ink currently has no colors, but trust me it has absolutely no problems in displaying photos, just saying (the relatively low grays are not a problem, also). You can see a picture of an e-ink displaying a little drawing on the wiki page. It seems that hanvon and e-ink triton are trying to fill the color "gap".

Obviously since on an e-ink reader the page takes seconds to turn, their are not so searchable. Designers are trying to address this problem displaying more pages contemporaneously.

For me, anyway, e-ink readers are optimum because I don't care about internet and videos, I don't wanna listen to anything nor I can endure the pain the headphones make me feel in my ears, so it's out of the question, and because of the contrast and high resolution they can display some of the most complicated or worse designed books in history (something I care), and last they don't heat.

--------------

HOHOHO! Bugs can "corrupt" your books too, you know? Also time, fire, wearing, mold and dirt... So you're not safe, sorry.

Also you don't really *need* to buy an ebook, a little bit like paper books...

I was not talking about physical searching, but electronic searching, which would not require me to turn each page while searching - that would be like searching a 'real' book. It just goes straight to display each page in turn which contains the search text.

An e-ink device should in principle be just as good as any other e-reader.

And I don't get what problem you have with headphones. Are you referring to the little 'buds' you put in your ears? They can be physically uncomfortable.

But I use a pair of Sony 'phones which cover the ears and are of pretty good quality, no different for my ears than listening to real speech or music. Except when cycling, because I wear a protective helmet, so I use a a pair of ear-buds which sit in my ears fairly loosely, so they are not physically uncomfortable, and the sound is ok, altho lacking in bass notes a bit. But fine for listening to speech, and I mostly listen to podcasts then.

The way you speak about new e-ink devices, they are much better than real books, so does that mean you won't be able to read paper books, knowing that they will look much better on such devices? I don't care, all I want, as I said, is that the screen is comfortably readable. As PASOB said, and I agree, " the ultimate thing is the content, not the delivery system."

EDIT: As for resolution, although it is a small screen, the resolution (pixel density) on my iPhone4 is much higher than any current e-ink device I am aware of.

luca,

I am also curious about 'contrast'. 

A site pushing the latest advances in e-ink, http://www.eink.com/,  claims they have now reached a contrast ratio of 10:1:

?? Almost as good as a paper-back book??

LCD displays are claimed to give static contrast ratios of 500:1 or more, when measured more realistically than some manufacturers do, which lets them quote 1000's to 1.

Unlike e-ink, backlit LCD contrast ratios are directly affected by the brightness of the light hitting them, so in direct sunlight they can be very low.

They are also affected by reflections from the glass covering them, which can be very distracting, altho the latest ones have ways to minimize the problem.

They also get high ratios when set to be much brighter than a white surface, such as a piece of paper, lit by room light. If you turn the brightness down to a level more comparable to the level of light reflected by a white surface, they will be lower than the 'specs'.

Even so, in ordinary room light, they can get much more contrast than e-ink, but the absence of reflection may be what you are responding to.

And the latest resolution of e-ink displays is quoted as "exceeding 200 dpi". My iPad is 132 dpi, but my iPhone is 326 dpi.

So e-ink is neither particularly high-contrast or the highest resolution.

I think what gives it the 'look' that appeals to you is its lack of a shiny reflective surface, and the contrast it does have is not affected by the ambient light. And I can understand and appreciate that. It's just that it doesn't worry me, as I have already said, as long as I can read the screen easily.

[ADDED] I am genuinely curious what it is about e-ink displays which so strongly appeals to some people, such as yourself, and why some people find backlit screens, such as LCDs, so hard to read for prolonged periods. I do recall now having seen an original Kindle, and thought it looked nice and clear, but it didn't strike me as clearly better to read from in any way than a good LCD display at a proper brightness setting, at least in the store lighting situation. Sort of like a book with slightly gray paper. I know they are improving significantly, so I should at least have another look, just so I know what I am talking about.

Ink on papar is much lower contrast than LCD backlit displays in all but the brightest light. Contrast is mainly affected by the blackness of the blacks. At least in the technical use of the term, referring to the ratio between the lightness of the whites and the blacks.

You don't need the blackness of the ink to be all that deep for it to perfectly readable, and below a level of 10% of the reflectance of the blank paper, it becomes unnoticeable, except in large areas of ink, not in fine lines like in printed characters.

That is why I said you must be referring to something else about the way ink-on-papar, or good e-ink, looks, to say it is 'high contrast'. And why I initially assumed you were saying e-ink is higher contrast than real ink on paper.

The problem with LCD backlit displays in sunlight is not so much their contrast, just that they are often simply nowhere near bright enough to be usable in such conditions. IOW it is the brightness of the white in a backlit display that is less than that of blank white paper in bright conditions like direct sunlight, that can make it harder to read, not the 'contrast'. That, I assume, must be what you are referring to, and why the misunderstanding.

'Contrast' can often be used in different and confusing ways. In old-style TV's, the 'contrast' control often had most obvious effect on the maximum brightness of the screen.

I can use my iPad in the sun, but my laptop is harder. 

Fascinating, and puzzling. My experience is just so different.

When LCD computer screens first appeared, on laptops, they were relatively low resolution. One of the things which bugged me about them was that the pixels were so crisply defined, I was distracted by the pattern of sharply defined rectangles of different colors, made worse by the visibility of the black mask between each individual LCD (red/green/blue) element.

On a CRT, the dots are fuzzy, and there is no black mask, so the pattern was less noticeable to me. But the overall softness of a CRT was, and is, noticeable to me. Once LCDs reached better resolution, they are my preferred display.

To me, CRT's are definitely inferior to any but the crappiest modern LCD's in every way. Less crisp, they all flicker, especially when you move your head - you see the effects of the top-to-bottom scanning. They have no better inherent contrast than LCD's.

I have just been looking at parts of my laptop screens with a 15 X magnifier, and at various printed documents I have around me. I just don't see any problem - the black ink on the paper is definitely not as black as the black on my screen, so that is a non-issue, to me anyway. My screen is definitely higher contrast than the printed paper. That is what my eyes tell me, anyway, confirmed by closer examination with the magnifier.

The sharpness of the character definition is clearly relevant, of course - no argument there. That was so apparent to me when I went from my iPhone 3GS to the iPhone 4, with literally twice the linear resolution, ie each single pixel replaced by four smaller ones. The smallest text on the map display suddenly became easily readable, where it had been difficult before. They also seem to have improved the contrast and color - my photos looked dramatically better on the screen.

If the screen is physically larger, the pixels-per-inch doesn't need to be as high. It is really more about the total resolution of the screen. The iPhone4 is 960 X 640.

That e-ink device you pointed at is 1200 x 825, which is less than 20% more res than my iPad, not in the ball-park of the doubling I got on the iPhone.

The only thing e-ink has inherently going for it is readability in bright light, like sunlight. Apart from much lower battery consumption, but that does not affect the reading experience itself.

Once the dots get small enough, in any technology, comparable to the size of the roughness of printed characters, which is mainly due to the size of the 'grain' of the paper, there will be no detectable difference there, if they choose to display a high-resolution image of an actual printed page, like you showed.

If it is simply generating fonts as normal on a text display, the digital display will look crisper, unless they choose to simulate the graininess of paper, for 'effect'.