ya but da smell olo

>>514822

That smell is mildew getting into your sinuses and lungs.

>>514818
Nice try.

>>514825

lol no da smell n da ppr is wut maek buk beter

It's factually accurate but you'll never get the paper purists to use new technology.

The materialist arguments are in favor of paper books, they are tactile. The tactile sense is becoming a thing of the past. It is neglected and that will only serve to deepen humanities ignorance and servitude.

>>514834
humanity's i meant. Also when I said the materialists i meant materialist's. I only slept for two hours last night..it was my birthday.

>>514834

What do you learn from the tactile feel of a book? There's no valuable information carried in the feel of paper unless you're blind and your book is braille. And do you really think you can touch and feel an ereader? Imo, the Nook feels much nicer to hold than a paperback.

>>514818
>twilight
>comic sans

bravo sir

I find it easier to find pages in a book than in a PDF. It's a little thing, sure, but it's true.

>>514843

But a pdf is searchable. You can find any part of the book instantly.

>>514844

Sure, if you keep clicking until your computer's slowdown means you overshoot what you wanted to find.

>>514847

ctrl + f, enter text to search for

Meanwhile the paper book user will be searching for the next four hours.

>>514852

Not unless the book in question is War and Peace, you twat.

>>514852
do most ereaders have this capability?

>>514837
Your argument illustrates exactly what I was stating--that the tactile sense which does not transmit information in its data form is not appreciated because information in the form of data is becoming predominant. In fact, you do ''learn'' from touching. This is one of the primary paths to knowledge. In our time, we relegate it to childs play but humanity would have not survived without the intuitive, inherent knowledge gained from our tactile sense.

>>514859

Every one I've ever seen has it. The Nook and Kindle do.

>implying authors want their books to be touched rather than read

>>514862

And what exactly have you learned from fondling your paperbacks in the dark?

>>514862
what you learn from touch is existentially essential. But I do have to conceed that the ereader is tactile. I hadn't really considered that and I guess when it comes down to it the paper book is an aesthetic choice which is not rationally sound.

>implying an ebook will last longer than actual book
>implying millions of trees that died a long time ago aren't used to power ebooks
>implying the ability to change font is somehow useful
>iplying the ability to get a book without any human contact is a plus point
>implying

>>514876

>implying an ebook will last longer than actual book

If you take care of it it will.

>implying millions of trees that died a long time ago aren't used to power ebooks

Solar chargers are cheap to buy and cheaper to make.

>implying the ability to change font is somehow useful

For those among us who have bad eyes it is truly the best feature of ereaders.

>implying the ability to get a book without any human contact is a plus point

I actually agree with you here.

>materialist argument
>materialist

wat

ebook readers are good for the portability and the ability to read documents and papers on the go. for casual reading it'll never replace paper books, at least not for me. don't know about the next generation though.

>>514888

>It's new and different and I don't like it

>>514876
>implying an ebook will last longer than actual book
It will. It can theoretically last for all eternity or as long as backups are kept.
>implying millions of trees that died a long time ago aren't used to power ebooks
Trees that died naturally a long time ago justifies destroying the environment? How did you even think for a second that was logical?
>implying the ability to change font is somehow useful
Not everyone has 20/20 vision. Some people need large fonts which aren't available on all books.
>iplying the ability to get a book without any human contact is a plus point
It is if I want a book at 3AM, or if I were paralyzed, or in a hospital, or on an airplane, or didn't have a car, or want a book the Barnes and Noble doesn't carry, or a million other situations that don't allow access to a book store

>>514891
hey retard, try reading the post before replying. i said i like ereaders and i will get one soon.

>>514892
it can't last forever, no copy is perfect, and no hard-drive will last longer than a century

and fossil fuels is far more detrimental than trees, that will regrow and take back all the carbon from there predecessors anyway

>>514903

>implying books printed today will last longer than a century

>>514903
>it can't last forever,
Near enough
> no copy is perfect,
All digital copies are exact, perfect duplicates
>and no hard-drive will last longer than a century
And neither will paper, but you can transfer from one drive to another just like you can reprint a new book or copy a manuscript (which isn't as perfect as a digital copy).

>>514913
many books already have

>>514917
>All digital copies are exact, perfect duplicates

No they aren't, take cs3.

>>514923
Yes the ones that have lasted were printed on high quality paper and ink. 99% of books today are printed on low quality paper with cheep ink.

>>514867
Why the fuck do you give even 1 shit about how other people read?

i'd be afraid to break that thing by accident since i want to take my books everywhere. good luck with your kindle on the beach or in crowded trains.

>>514942
good thing that they generally make more than 100 copies then

Ughhh I dont want to buy all the books I already own just to put them on an ereader

>>514952
If you take those 100 books and put them on a book shelf for 100 years they will be unreadable. The ink will fade and the acid in the paper will start to destroy the book.

>>514954
#bookz at us.undernet.org

>>514954

Then buy new books you don't have yet and put those on an ereader.

>>514952

>implying the amount of printed copies influences how well the materials will hold up

>>514954
There are places you can get ebooks for free on the internet. Torrent all the books you have and just buy the new ones if you want to support the authors.

real books with paperback look better.

>>514971
Subjective. I think the text looks better on an e-ink display.

If I drop a book in the toilet, a couple weeks in the freezer will fix it to (almost) good as new.

If I drop my ebook in the toilet, my entire library of 1000+ books is destroyed.

Your argument is invalid. <3

I would use an e-reader, but I have a tendency to read for long periods of time, which would be hazardous to my eyes (illuminated screens hurt them after an hour or two) and the battery life.

I like that my books don't have blank pages after reading them for six hours.

>>514981

>too stupid to back up ebooks

Also the vast majority of books wont get reprinted in 100 years. So the digital copies will last far longer than the printed copies.

eh, i'd use both
i'd use ebook readers for the sheer mass number of books i could read for free on it

but when i'd start reading a great book which i love, i would just have to get it on paper, it's just not the same feeling.

>>514981
If you get a kindle you can re-download any books you bought onto a new kindle if yours is destroyed.

>>514981
eh, don't you backup your shit on your computer or something

ITT WE TRY TO QUANTIFY THE FEELING OF HOLDING A BOOK AND PHYSICALLY TURNING THE PAGES VERSUS THE ABSTRACT QUANTIFICATION OF THE UTILITY OF EBOOKS.

Thread is destined for troll and fail.

>>514981

What do you not understand about online backups? Your books can't be destroyed.

>>514982
Ebook readers like the kindle aren't back lit and have days of battery life because of the eInk.

>>514995
this is just a personal preference thing, no need to make it out to be a battle over some ridiculous notion of absolute goodness tier ranking shit

>>514997

This, I can read for hours a day for several days before I need to recharge the Nook.

>>514991
>>514994
>>514996
>>514983
ITT Silly bitches assume I would/do buy my books, rather than steal them from Borders stores filled with apathetic employees.

I have a math textbook from 1886 on my shelf. I keep it because I love the feel of century-old leather and the smell of old paper. Yes, it will deteriorate someday, but doesn't everything? In the end, I'd rather have an item that is the pure soul and essence of the written word, not an over-priced .doc reader.

>>514997
Also if you get a little solar charger you can literally read indefinably as long as your outside some of the time. eInk uses no power to display an image, it only uses power to change an image. So you can recharge the think with 2 hours of sunlight and read for the rest of the day in the dark if you want.

I can read for two weeks without charging the batteries. E-ink display is better than paper.

>>514962
Damn. I was hoping I could keep my books for longer than that.

I'm not a Luddite; I simply prefer physical books over digital copies. I find them to be completely different experiences. It's irrational, but I can't help it. Now, I've only tried reading e-books on my computer, so I might feel different if I used an e-reader. After all, you can hold it in your hand in the same way you might hold a book, and that might make the experiences feel more similar. But even if I did make the switch, I would still occasionally buy hardcover books for my favorites; I would just neglect buying cheap paperbacks.

>>515029
>After all, you can hold it in your hand in the same way you might hold a book, and that might make the experiences feel more similar.

That's exactly it. My e-reader is tucked inside a very comfortable leather cover that imitates the feel and weight of a paperback copy of Catcher in the Rye. It sits perfectly into the crook of my left hand, and I can thumb forward the pages using the same hand I'm holding the book with. I also don't get tired of holding the book in one hand as I do with paper copies, because the pages are not resisting being held open. You can also lay your e-reader flat on the table and enjoy reading while doing something with both hands, like eating or preparing something at work.

>>515038
> I also don't get tired of holding the book in one hand as I do with paper copies, because the pages are not resisting being held open. You can also lay your e-reader flat on the table and enjoy reading while doing something with both hands, like eating or preparing something at work.

This is what I love most about the ereaders. It's also easier to get even, strong lighting on the page when it's flat compared to the curve of a paper book.

the kindle is too big and bulky for my taste, are there better ones?

Using the iPad as an ebook reader would be stupid though. Back lit so it will hurt your eyes and horrible battery life because it's LCD not e-Ink. Who ever decided to market it as an ebook reader was seriously retarded.

>>515044

There are smaller ones. Nook is roughly the same size but it's sleeker, which makes it more comfortable to hold, but it's also considerably heavier, not outrageously heavy but it's noticeable compared to the feather weight Kindle. I think Sony makes smaller readers.

>>515018

I just like how books feel in my hands. Doesn't that count for anything?

EBooks are cool too though.

>>515047
given the sort of stuff apple has sold to their millions over the years, it's expected

>>515044
Sony Pocket Reader 300 is what I have, and I'm delighted with its size and weight. It slips into any coat pocket I have and the screen size is just perfect.

Questions ignored:

What is the cost to produce and maintain those backup servers? What is the cost to actually manufacture each Kindle?

>>515055
I don't think either of those questions matter very much. I don't use backup servers. I download my e-books free from IRC chat rooms where I can find almost anything my heart desires in the format I want.

Fuck the Kindle. Why would I purchase a locked in piece of shit that forces me to buy books only from one place?

>>515055
You can literally buck up like a million books on a microSD card.

>>515058

But that irc is basically a backup server. You can redownload anything.

>>515054

thanks, thats more like what i am looking for.

>>515059
Fucking hell I'd stoopid today 'back up' not 'buck up'.

Aesthetically, paper books win.
In practicality, ebooks win.

>>515062
No, IRC is not like a backup server. There are simply users who allow other users to access the index of their E-book folders. The 'cost' to maintain an IRC chatroom is 0 dollars. The bandwidth (50-200kbs per book; it's a joke how little books take) costs are shouldered by the individual users themselves who wish to share.

It's distributed, sort of like Bit Torrent!

>>515058

I think they do. People are touting how much "Greener" eBooks are, but ignoring many of the hidden costs. If eReaders are going to behave anything like the PC or Cell Phone industry, you can expect the average user to buy a new one every 2-5 years.

>>515072

Why would you need a new one? Text today is the same as text in 10 years. If displays text now it'll display text then too.

>>515087
You say this, but you and I both know that we'll be upgrading our e-readers when they significantly improve. The internal batteries will die, offering further incentive to upgrade rather than replace.

>>515087
I'll buy a new one when they come out with color e-Ink but other than that I don't feel the need to upgrade.

>>515087
Why would you need a new phone? Phone calls today are the same as phone calls in 10 years. If it receives and makes phone calls now it'll receive and call them then too.

>>515089
But my Nook's battery is replaceable.

>>515096
Call Quality

>>514818
Hard-rive or flash drive failure

Lose all 10000 books in one go.

>>515100
>doesn't read thread
>posts the same fallacy others were already criticized for

>>515100
Yeah that's been addressed, kindle and nook auto backup your books.

>>515100
>Grease fire in your kitchen from making french fries like the fat fuck you are. Lose all your books in one go.

>Hurricane rips through your house. Lose all your books in one go.

>The levees break and your house is submerged. Lose all your books in one go.


I can do this for a long time.

>>515116
actually, one of the reasons i'm getting a reader is that i lost 2 boxes of books through a moving accident a year ago. fucking a.

ebooks:
are much more fragile,
a drop of water, or a drop is enough to permanently disable them
have terrible formatting
give the buyer no rights at all to the copy they have purchased,
cannot be loaned, or sold
and are several hundred thousand times worse for the environment,
they require strip mining for rare earth elements,
each reader directly involves the blood of poor chinese people, who die by the thousands each year mining for them.
the production of their plastic casings is seriously polluting,
require access to electricity generating stations, which are again extremely harmful,
rely on a fragile multi billion dollar infrastructure to access media, that can be easily disrupted or revoked for the general public at the whims of others.

but hey you dont actually see any of this shit going on, you just get a shiny doodah that magically appears and works right, youre not doing anything any harm.

>>515119

lol who cares about the chinese or strip mines?

liberal fag

>>515118
The reason why I got my e-reader is because I have no more damn room for books in my house. Every shelf is full. All window ledges have books stacked 20-high. My bed is surrounded by towers of books that lean precariously over me at night.

>>515118

I hate moving with books. I've moved 7 times in my life and I have hundreds of pounds of books. God, it sucks to carry heavy boxes of books up and down stairs.

>>515119
also, 80% of all forests in western states are fast growing softwoods, grown on a rotational system for the paper and furniture industries. without a profit margin to support their cultivation, we would see an increase in permanent deforestation

>>515119
Fuck dude how are you on the internet without using any plastic or rare earth elements?

>>515126
quit being a fat lazy cunt then

>paper vs. electronic storage
if stored in a proper environment, paper will easily last multiple lifetimes. have fun trying to transfer bookmarks and the like whenever you want to upgrade your home pc, phone, or ereader.

>durability of the information
when you own a paper book, you indeed actually own it. when you pay for an ebook, you do not own the bits of information. have fun trying to transfer that to different devices, changing distribution companies, etc. oh yeah, also have fun when the content owner decides that they don't want you reading the book anymore.

>space taken up by books
a library lets you read books legally for free as long as you return it on or before the due date. it is superior to any other model.

>text options
all of the various text options you have shown are utter shit. i have never had an issue with reading any real book i have purchased regarding the font type and size used.

>environment
trees can be regrown. the materials used to build ebook readers are significantly more harmful to the environment and are available at an extremely limited supply.

What's the cheapest Ereader a britfag could get?

>>515134
Ummm the Sony Pocket Reader 300?

Get it inside your skull, yuppie fucks.

Ebooks aren't revolutionary, and they aren't certainly "green"

Do you have the slightest idea of how much it takes and how it damages the enviroment to manufacture one of those things?

>>515140
I don't give a fuck about being green. I have an e-book reader because I have 1000s of books that I've downloaded for free. No waiting in queues at the library for a book to become available. No hauling around heavy hardcovers in my bookbag. No fucking nasty jizz stains gluing pages together.

>>515140

Ebooks are revolutionary. Face the facts.

>>515145
1/10

>>515146

Then explain how all of the revolutionary new features from OP's pic don't exist.

>>515143
I hope you enjoy reading your Harry Potter on your iPad.

>>515151

Ah, how cute. The little kids have woken up from sleeping in on their day off from daycare. Now they're here to trying trolling like a big boy.

>>515151
>implying that reading Harry Potter is something to be ashamed of

You're a fucking dweeb, anon.

>implying that an iPad is an ereader.

>>515133
regarding the environment:

The trees do regrow, but what companies do is cut the natural flora to plant eucalipto trees.

This thread is horrible.

Let the trendy faggots enjoy their device, guys.

BOOM - fixed for the sake of fair comparison.

Can't write notes in ebooks

>>515165
Yes you can (depending on device). Also writing in books is vulgar.

>>515165
You can on a kindle...

>>515165

Yes you can. Nook, Kindle and others can all write notes.

Oh well, this thread again.

Anyway, I've tried posting some balanced opinion before, but just today I started seeing more and more advantages in e-books. Reason is, I'm moving and it's so damn hard to decide which books to keep and which to get rid of, since of course there's only limited shelf space and sooner or later you're going to lose the emotional bond to most of them. I always hated that and can't see it happening as easily with an e-reader.

Still, they are way too expensive right now + I don't want to start pirating my books as well, because I know I would.

>>515138

Just looked it up.

Fucking currency conversions. In the minds of Sony, $139 = £130.

OP fails - the vast majority of the world's printing paper is made from bamboo and not trees.

>>515011

I don't know if you've been to Barnes and Noble lately, but most of the books they sell aren't exactly handcrafted 19th century leather-bound masterpieces.

That's not what we're talking about.

Ebooks don't make you smile when you look on your collection. Ebooks don`'t give you a nostalgic feeling when you smell on your old children books.
I like normal books better.

>>515184
What I like best about e-readers is it frees up so much of my casual book-buying money to be spent on actual awesome editions.

Also, bowls of Pho and orders of 3 spring rolls at a time, to be slurped down while reading hands-free from my e-reader perched against the napkin stand.

Good thing my paper came from a tree farm grown specifically to be turned into paper. There are more trees in my country today than there were 60 years ago.

Also in 200 years all the data currently stored on computers will be completely gone. Some books can last longer than that.

Your family photos on your computer won't be around for long. Even if you back it up it won't last and will eventually be corrupted after several decades.

I think the problem is that people see ebook vs paper book as a competing medium as opposed to a complimentary medium.

>>515188

So in 200 years I won't be able to read my ebooks anymore? BUT THAT'S TOO SOON!

the only solution is to give for free or an extra dollar an ebook when you buy the physical copy.

>>515192

I would just throw the paperback at a hobo because I don't need it.

>>515192
>implying that I care to have the physical copy of most books when I can have the digital format instead.

I think a lot of the posters in this thread are just underage and romanticize books because they don't actually have that goddamn many lying around. When you hit your late 20s and have spent most of your life acquiring books, you're going to realize that there is such a thing as too much shit lying around.

I will never re-read the vast majority of the printed material I own. I'd much rather have a free digital copy that I've downloaded, and then can easily dispose of the moment I'm done.

This mania to fill up one's shelves is the literati equivalent of the e-penis. Childish.

>>515194
Nonsense. You just have to have the foresight to plan for a library when you purchase/build your home.

Though that could just be me, I reread books constantly. Honestly, the idea that there is a correct choice in the book vs ebook this is stupid.

>>515198
But not everyone wants to, can, or needs to live in a home.

Books take up a lot of wasted space. I love home libraries--don't get me wrong, here. But very few people can or should bother maintaining such a space.

For the rest of us, digital storage is the much more efficient solution. Do you still have shelves jammed with records and CDs? I don't. My music collection is entirely digital.

I'd like to have one shelf filled with my favorite editions and books that I want to re-read. Everything else, digital and out of sight.

>>515133
>>515190

I wish more people were like you.

>>515204
Sorry, I meant "not everyone wants to/ can / needs to live in a house."

A small apartment in NYC, while great for living in, simply has no room for books.

>>515161

Nice try, but you morons trying to play this envirocard are ignorant. The environment is a long-term problem, not a here today and forget tomorrow issue.

Even if an e-reader is 3 times worse for the environment than a book on the production side, the long-term environmental costs are much lower. Once the reader is bought, that cost has been paid, whereas when you purchase a physical book, you are paying that cost every time.

The electricity used to power an e-reader is so minuscule it almost can't be counted in long-term costs.

>>515213
Technology doesn't last long these days, you know. You'll have to change your ereader every five years or so, probably even less. And when you do, you'll have something that doesn't degrade and is full of stuff like mercury.

In the long term plan, ereaders are also worse than printed books. Trees are renewable, the materials for producing the ereader aren't.

My patent idea for an e-reader. A book with digital pages that you turn like a normal book. Of course, purists will still bitch about having a stand-alone copy.

>>515133
>when you own a paper book, you indeed actually own it. when you pay for an ebook, you do not own the bits of information. have fun trying to transfer that to different devices, changing distribution companies, etc. oh yeah, also have fun when the content owner decides that they don't want you reading the book anymore.
this is only tru for the kindle
stupid fucks

Physical books are more convenient to read, especially for the first time or for reading outdoors on a nice day.

Electronic books are easier to search (AKA godmode), and you can carry your entire library with you.

However, only chumps pay for ebooks. Buy a real book, then pirate a DRM-free html version.

>>515220

>implying that e-readers will always be manufactured with the same compounds.

As you said yourself, technology changes. Unless books come up with a new, renewable material for their construction, the e-readers will advance beyond your concerns.

everyone knows the power to keep servers running causes a shitton of pollution. some things aren't worth giving up. we're cultural animals and physical books are fuckin here to stay just like cow farts

>>515233
So I think I'll stick with printed books while ereaders aren't there yet.

>>515228
And if nobody buys ebooks, how much longer will ereaders be made?

>>515233
>unless books come up with a new, renewable material for their construction

but trees are renewable.

and e-readers will have to change drastically to be more environmentally friendly than printed books. very little to no plastic, for instance.

I sure do want a book that runs out of batteries

Solution: Hardcovers for books you really cherish, ebooks for everything else.

>>515247

Renewable is merely a keyword used to differentiate between resources that can be refreshed within a lifetime versus those that cannot. In this sense, trees are renewable.

However, when you cut down trees faster than you renew them such as we are now, they are not constant in supply. Also, you cannot cut down every tree, as such an act would have dire environmental consequences.

Technology, meaning electronics, has shown a trend in adapting its processes. Books, on the other hand, have been using similar processes for hundreds of years.

Trees are dwindling in their populations. This is a fact, and the only consequence of this will not be less or more expensive books. I give the paper book another 50 years before it becomes obsolete to the point only the most ardent purist will search them out.

the trees thing. you realize the problem is not trees getting killed, but the resources involved in doing it. processing the trees into paper pulp, treating the thing with chemicals, and the fuels of transportation/production are all nonrenewable processes/resources.

Re OP:

That's all well and good. But get back to me when:

- ebooks are the same price as, or cheaper than, ordinary books - and as easy to get hold of

- every book that's available in print is also available for an e-reader - including critical editions, illustrated works, Blake's original plates, and facsimile copies of 16th, 17th and 18th century publications.

- there is a universally accepted and convenient ebook format that is versatile, ubiquitous and transferrable when I get a new device.

- any text document (.pdf, .doc, .rtf) can be converted into that format

- I can get a one or two week license to 'lend' copies of that format, for free, to my friends

Essentially, get back to me when there are as few strings on buying an expensive ebook reader as there are on buying a punch of paper books. Until then I'll stick with my pile of yellowing tomes, happy with the notes I've made in them and the physical marks left in them by my use. After all, I'll live for another 80 years, tops - they can probably last until I'm senile.

>>515261
>trees being cut down faster than "we" can plant them
only happens in shit countries like africa which are clearing land for agriculture. in real countries tree planting >= tree cutting.

>you cannot cut down every tree
nobody wants to do that

>>515273
>there is a universally accepted and convenient ebook format that is versatile, ubiquitous and transferrable when I get a new device.

HTML seems good

The biggest con to ebooks, are what the publishers are doing to them, with restrictive rights management, and laughably high prices.

You cant argue that ebooks make great economical sense and cause less damage to the environment, and than expect me to pay the SAME price as i would for a paper back, for a digital copy. Seriously, 14.99 for a kindle version vs. 14.99 for a paper back. With the paperback i know they are spending significant cash on printing it and publishing it. Creating 500, 000 copies costs them how ever many millions of dollars, ontop of paying the author. Allowing people to download those half a million digital copies costs them *maybe* $10 worth of bandwidth, plus paying the author... so why dont i get any of the savings?

Its that kind of shit that makes me WANT to see ebooks fail. Same logic applies to MP3's, btw... 99cents per track is a joke, and until its fair you can bet people will feel justified in stealing the tracks.

>>515273
>- ebooks are the same price as, or cheaper than, ordinary books - and as easy to get hold of
Hey, uhm, that time is now.
Especially with, classics that are, you know, free.

Hardcover books are fucking expensive. E-books are much cheaper.

I like it when the paper yellows. Anyone else?

>>515294

In a perfect world scenario:

If everything went to an electronic format, the publishing industry would go under and writers would simply offer up their works on their web pages.

Since a typical author royalty is 8-10%, imagine the price reduction, even if the author went to 25% royalty for added overhead costs.

Hey there! Are YOU tired of owning property? Are books dull and lifeless to you? Do you miss the anarchic days of not knowing whether some jackass would walk up to you and snatch your possessions right out of your hand? Well sadden yourself no more, friend, because THE EBOOK HAS ARRIVED! No more shall you suffer the disgusting comfort of knowing that your book will be around in the morning. Instead you can simply download an ebook, and be happy in the knowledge that the provider reserves all rights to delete the book from your electronic reader at any time, for any reason! Ah, but don't tell me--you worry that the fun will be diminished by the fact that you can simply ask for the book back? Not to worry! You don't get your book back, you bitch. You get to pay for it again.

Ah, but I know what you're going to say! "Even with that, I still love spending ridiculous amounts of money on physical books, with only a tiny measly percentage of that cost actually going to the authors! I don't want to pay lower prices for digital information!" Not to worry, my friend, because thanks to the magic of the publishing industry an eBook costs exactly as much as a regular book! That's right, you can pay full price for half the product! Technology is amazing, isn't it?

>>515306
And if you think the fun stops there, friend, then you're helplessly naive! Because if you'll think about it, you'll realize that the absolute worst part of old books were the ability to share them and buy them second-hand. THAT BULLSHIT IS OVER! Now that technology has cuaght up to the standards of the benevolent RIAA, you'll never have to worry about lending people books again, because that's piracy, motherfucker! Your precious words will never leave your grasp, and if that cute girl you want to recommend a book to wants to see one of your texts... well, fuck her! The rule of law has finally extended to the realm of words, and restricting laws have never been more fun!

Half the product, none of the reliability, none of the flexibility, and all of the cost, with the added charges of maintaining your shoddy electronic reader that you will void the warranty of if you modify (as if it belongs to you just because you paid for it! Ha!) WELCOME TO THE FUTURE OF READING!!

Ugh I can't stand ebooks. I wish I could but I can't. I just can't enjoy reading from a screen, it's gotta be physical paper for me.

I do grab ebooks of nonfiction/reference works now and then but that's about it.

>>515306
yup. Remember when amazon snatched back the paid copies of 1984 and animal farm? They say they wont do it again, but thats obviously complete BS... They have the ability, and if a author or publisher push's hard enough you know damn well it'll happen again.

Amazon played their card, and compromised their entire system. When i buy a Ebook reader, it'll be some generic, 1 generation behind, chinese thing not linked to any distribution system. I'll load the books up through a SD card or USB cable, and all the books will be 'acquired' from sources that dont have tentacles into the files. Even if they were offering a fair price, i wouldnt pay for it because they have proven they value the ridiculous demands of the estate of a dead author over the customer. As if i'm going to support a company that pulls that shit.

get an e-book too close to a magnet and lose all the data

>>515318
Magnets dont effect modern storage formats... I mean unless the magnet is powerful enough to rip the solder/chips right out of the board, you'll be fine.

>>515321
affect. Magnets don't affect modern storage... Magnets don't have any effect on modern storage...

can't annotate an e-book

E-waste is far worse than deforestation (which is becoming almost negligible as sustainable tree farming practices are being adopted by more and more logging companies.)

>>515328
THIS. E-books are for casuals who never write in their own books.

>>515328
er... yeah you can.
Sony, the Nook, the ipad, etc.. all allow you to make annotations. I think the kindle does too, though its a bit clunky since you have to use the keyboard.

>>515328
>>515332

Before I call you both retards, perhaps you wish to read the product descriptions for e-readers and retract your statements.

>>515329

>implying that trees are the only material used in the production of books.

Do you think the trees cut themselves down?
Do you think the trees transport themselves to factories?
Do you think trees have naturally white pulp?
Do you think books print themselves?
Do you think that ink magically appears on the pages?
Do you think books drive themselves to the store?

>>515341
No. E-readers are still for faggots.

>>515344
Uhh, no. I don't think I said any of that.

>>515346
so butthurt

>>515161
>>515161
>>515161
>>515161
>>515161
>>515161

>>515346

Thanks for admitting defeat.

>>515352

I like how the "fair" comparison is full of bullshit, such as the lie that you can get a physical book instantly anywhere in the world like an ebook, none of which is true.

>>515356
I don't see the word 'instantly' anywhere in that image. Also 'anywhere in the world' is bullshit and should have been removed when the guy edited it.

Any book that needs electricity to work is for faggots.

>Oh durp de durr, just reading my book on an airplane, or the beach, or-- oops, ran out of batteries. Oh boy, this sure is inconvenient.

Give me a fucking break.

Whole lotta trendy faggots up in this bitch.

E-books are still technically the property of the company that sold them to you. That's why they can delete things off of some readers without your consent and get away with it.

Basically, by buying an e-reader, you are moving society one step closer to a 1984 style totalitarian dictatorship where the past can be changed with the click of a mouse.

>>515367

Do you read by candlelight? Or do you use ELECTRIC lights?

I've just bought and started using a Sony eReader. Some thoughts:

PROS: It does what it says on the tin. You can read books on it. You can find many books for free. Frankly, the device would be nearly worth it even if you could only read public domain books on it. Unlike the Kindle, Sony can't yank my books without my permission, and so forth.

CONS: I'm not romantic about paper books by any means, but some things just will never be the same. I will say that many of my best literary discoveries came when I either 1) randomly stumbled across an interesting-looking book in a bookstore or 2) did the same, but in a library. It's harder to do that with an eReader. I'm never surprised by what I find in my eReader, and when I'm searching for books to download, it's me who is actively looking for stuff, and not just me navigating the bookshelves and finding something curious and cool. I discovered Patricia Anthony as a kid just because her stuff was right next to Piers Anthony (yeah, yeah). I discovered Zod Wallop by William Browning Spencer just because it was on the shelf. Little stuff like that.

Also, it's annoying that I have to pirate books I already own. I've been reading the Pevear translation of The Idiot, but now I have to switch to a public domain translation to read it on my eReader. Stuff like that.

In sum, it's still a great device, but paper books will not go away any time soon for me.

>>515374

Cool bullshit, bro. Too bad it's not true. The only case of an ebook being taken back was because the company sold them without the right to do so. All customers got a full refund and could repurchase the book from the real company which actually had the rights to the book. Nothing was lost.

>>515374

This is not true for all ebooks or all readers. That said, I'm never buying any DRMed ebooks.

>>515376
The sun is a mass of incandescent gas.

>>515367
My ebook reader gets 2 weeks of continuous battery life before I have to plug in the USB cable to the computer. When I say 2 weeks, I mean 2 weeks without ever allowing the e-reader to not display a page-- coincidentally, the e-reader doesn't draw power to display a page. To charge it back up to full takes 2.5 hours plugged into the USB.

>>515376
Nuclear Fusion

>>515367

This is annoying, but it's also sort of dumb as far as complaints go. They're easy to charge, brah, and the charge lasts for a week or two. I'm not constantly fumbling around with a dead laptop and a dead phone crying "OH NO! I RAN OUT OF THE ELECTRICITY JUICE!"

Then again, I do suppose that, when the shit hits the fan, my paper books will survive, whereas my eReader will brick until electricity comes back. Then again, if all the electricity in the world is gone for weeks at a time, I probably have bigger concerns than "how will I finish my Gene Wolfe collection."

>>515385
>The sun is a mass of incandescent gas.

No it is not. The sun is not a gas. It's plasma.

>>515391
It's just like that impulse to hoard pornography on external hard drives.

"Oh no, what if the internet goes down BUT the electricity stays up?"

"What if the apocalypse happens and I need to jack it to Faye Reagan?"

I don't remember information that I read on a screen as well as I remember information that I read on a piece of paper.

>>515391
I think a lot of the people who bring up the power thing either want everything to be as simple as possible or romanticize about a world were most of the 'modern' people have had the skin pealed off their skulls by mutant cyborg orcs.

I'm both.

>>515397

LOL, yes. What a weird confluence of events will need to occur for those 30 gigs of porn to come in handy. I think it's just an obsessional personality.

>>515399

The fuck is wrong with you?

>>515394
Yeah, but that's the name of the song.

>>515399
It's not just you. Science has shown that people read text that is on a screen much differently than printed text.

>>515417

cite plox

>>515417

Science has shown that ebook owners have larger penises and higher IQs.

Ebooks are a fucking joke.

Fuck this thread I'm going to read one of my paperbacks.

>>515417

Backlit screens are quite different than e-ink screens.

Cultural background like "words on paper are permanent and important" versus "words on a screen are ephemeral and less important" may change over time.

ebooks are so obnoxious and lame

gimme pages to turn tyvm

>>515431

Turning pages is slow and annoying. I just want to read, not fuck around with crude wood pulp.

Turning pages is retarded. Only children use their hands.

"Oops I dropped my ebook. Oh god dammit, my screen is broken and my entire library is gone!"

"Oops I dropped my paperback and it got run over by a oil tanker. Well, the cover is a little scuffed and torn, but the text is just fine. I think I'll donate this book to charity once I'm done reading it."

Turning Stone is a casino. Only gamblers gamble there.

>>515367
I worry about that shit more than i should, and honestly, provided you're using e-paper, you shouldnt have to worry. You can get something like 20, 000 page turns from a charge... Even if you charge the thing and let it sit for 1 year(li-ion batteries lose their charge over time) you'll STILL have enough juice to go through a couple books.

Its the ones that use LCD's that need to be avoided. They dont use 'page turns' but rather powered on time... With the kindle, as long as you have the wifi/3G disabled, you can display a page for eternity without using energy. With shitty chinese-branded readers, you only have 12-20 hours... even if you're only displaying a static page.

>>515382
It still established a precedent. I have enough excuses to avoid DRM files without having to worry about them taking the file back because of some behind the scenes copyright fight.

>>515439

This is one of the few good arguments against ebooks in general.

My response would be: I don't drop my iPod, I don't drop my laptop, I don't drop my camera. I'm a pretty careful guy. That said, if something happens, then it happens. And if I can read $250 worth of free books on my eReader (about 25 books) before it goes kaput, then it will have paid for itself.

>>515450

It's not a good argument at all because your library of thousands of ebooks didn't get destroyed. You can download them again on an infinite amount of ereaders or computers.

>>515421
http://www.usabilitynews.com/news/article2484.asp

>>515455

This is true. I have my ebooks backed up on my hard drive anyhow. Still, breaking an ereader means losing the value of the entire $250-or-so device, even if your books are safe.

>>515439
>"Oops I dropped my ebook. Oh god dammit, my screen is broken! Oh well at least I still have all my books online."

>"Oops I dropped my paperback and now all the libraries in the world have burst into flame and all the books are gone forever."

fixed

>>515455
and provided the damage isn't especially bad most of the data can be retrieved anyway

>>515457

This is smart-but-anecdotal advice as to how to write for the web, not scientific proof that one remembers information on a screen less than in a book.

That said, I will say that I find reading a novel insufferable on a laptop screen, but it's no effort at all on an ereader. The screen is not backlit, and there are no distractions on the ereader.

>>515461
>all the libraries in the world have burst into flame and all the books are gone forever."

You're really grasping at straws there. Are ebooks only better than real books if the apocalypse happens?

>>515461
but what if all the internets burst into flame..

>>514836
Happy Birthday!

also: Happy Easter! (or Zombie Jesus Day, if you prefer)

>>515474

The internets have burst into flame. They are aflame with desire for Summer Glau.

>>515439
bigger problem is lost of readers do not have user-replaceable batteries. Lithium ion batteries only really last 5-7 years in ideal conditions(and significantly less if they are charged frequently and used in warm places... like in someone's hands on a warm day)
That mean you really shouldnt expect the reader to last more than 3 years... So ontop of buying all your books digitally for the same price of a paper back, you'll also have to factor in the $100(we'll assume that will be the standard mass market price for readers in the future, even though its $300 now) every few years.

Until the price of the actual ebooks goes down, it seems like a scam that tries to appeal to environmentalists, while the publisher's pocket the windfall profits. Like the other guy said, the cost of printing and distributing a paperback while paying the author makes a $15 price tag make sense. The cost of uploading a 1 meg file and paying the author does NOT make a $15 price tag make sense. I was under the impression the authors only made a fraction of a dollar off every book sold... The rest going to pay for the cost of marketing, creating, and distribution.

I'm not going to give some fuck-head industry a 80% profit margin just so i can feel good about saving some trees... Id rather see the trees(in farmed land, btw) get cut down than them blatantly rip me off.

Seriously, FUCK the book industry. This scam is 1000x worse than what the recording industry was doing, since its about 10000x more greedy.

>>515482
I do not know who that is.

Big Brother finally happens. They're running around burning books. They don't have to burn your e-reader, since they can just delete everything with the push of a button, or BETTER YET just censor/edit your entire library.

Nothing beats having the actual book in your hands. Flipping through pages is part of the reading experience.

>>515468
>That said, I will say that I find reading a novel insufferable on a laptop screen, but it's no effort at all on an ereader. The screen is not backlit, and there are no distractions on the ereader.

This. I have a nice 22" 16x10 monitor that is perfect for displaying 2 full pages, and i cant fucking stand reading off it. The display tech is shit for doing in depth, relaxing reading. a 5" e-paper reader is so much better.

>>515499

Be glad you don't.

>>515500
Protip: the Amazon Kindle which is always connected to the internet via 3G is the exception, and not the norm. Big Brother cannot delete that which they cannot access. My Sony Pocket Reader has no internet connection. I connect it to my computer and transfer books.

>>515496

Then that's a problem of those specific models, not Ebooks in general. Many models do have replaceable batteries, so get one of those.

>>515501
Nothing beats sitting in a sticky chair at the theatre. Having niggers kick the back of my chair is a part of the movie-watching experience.

I read books in pdf format on my desktop when I'm either too cheap to buy a book or the copy at my library is gross (boogers? greasy finger marks? book bugs? fuck that). In a perfect future, all books would be made into ebooks as well but until then it's not worth purchasing an ebook reader.

Books aren't like albums or even movies where it's extremely easy to make a digital copy. It takes an extremely dedicated person to make a fan-made ebook (scanning every page, or worse, typing it out word for word [even if this process is streamlined somehow, it's still much more complicated than ripping a cd]) so there'll never be torrent sites for books that resemble what/oink in their comprehensiveness.

>>515496

What's interesting about the price point is that paying $15 for a book seems to make sense: $15 sounds about right for a physical object that you can read in a few hours or a few months. Then you still have that physical object. You can give it to other people or use it to kill centipedes.

Problem is, a tiny portion of that price tag went into the physical process of making it. Printing is a relatively minor cost, in comparison to marketing, distribution, layout, and EDITING...

So then ereaders come around and people start buying ebooks. But wait, why are they so expensive? $15 doesn't seem right for a glorified pdf, especially if there's DRM. There's nothing to physically hold. You can't freely lend it to friends, typically, and you can't kill centipedes with it.

Surprise: while printing costs money, even with that taken out of the equation, books can't just be $5 a pop under the current publishing model. So now you're left paying about the same for something with demonstrably less value than a paper book. What's worse is that lack of value is TACTILE - you can feel how it's different from a paper book. This makes people unhappy to pay this seemingly exorbitant amount for a glorified pdf.

So now the question is: will the publishing industry change before or after the diminished value of ebooks forces a price shift downward? Will smaller publishers with fewer employees/middlemen more easily survive this transition?

Over two hundred posts about this? Really? People aren't happy with just letting people get what they like more?

I like having a physical book, so EVERYONE must have a physical book. Let's get some pitchforks people!

eReaderfags, they're just making it easier to take all your books away when the NWO takes over.

>>515521

Not in their comprehensiveness, no. However, I've seen plans online for $300 DIY automatic book scanners. How long before someone figures out how to mass produce these, for, say, $400 a pop? It would still be an esoteric hobby, to scan in books, but it's not so hard after you've got the tech.

That said, the vast majority of what's on my ereader is public domain anyhow. Gutenberg and Manybooks are awesome.

>>515521
>Books aren't like albums or even movies where it's extremely easy to make a digital copy. It takes an extremely dedicated person to make a fan-made ebook (scanning every page, or worse, typing it out word for word [even if this process is streamlined somehow, it's still much more complicated than ripping a cd])

Yes it is much more complex than ripping a CD, but it's not nearly as hard as you make it sound. Optical Character Recognition technology has improved by leaps and bounds. I work to digitize books as a part of my job currently. It's easy as hell. Have you seen the scene for comic books? It's enormous and comprehensive. The scene for books is much the same.

Consider that now it's as easy as purchasing a legit copy of an e-book, stripping it of its DRM and converting it to ePUB, and then re-releasing it.

>so there'll never be torrent sites for books that resemble what/oink in their comprehensiveness.

Actually, there are already sites for books that resemble what/waffles in their comprehensiveness.

I, however, prefer just getting them off of IRC. #bookz at us.undernet.org

>>515516
No.. Most models are designed to be slim and sexy, and require li-ion batteries to fit that form. Only the bulky, low quality chinese ones seem to use standard batteries.

This is more of a battery issue than ebook reader issue. Until *SOMEONE* makes a standard li-ion gumstick battery, we'll continue to rely on the shitty circular AA,AAA, C, D, etc... form factors that arnt ideal for newer battery technology.

Sony tried making a standard a few years ago with their minidisc and discman players, but since they probably demanded people pay them for the rights to use it, it died off.

2 words:
No Hardback.

/thread

>>515542

No, some of the slimmest highest quality models like the Nook have replaceable batteries and expansion slots for microSD cards too.

>>515526
>Problem is, a tiny portion of that price tag went into the physical process of making it. Printing is a relatively minor cost, in comparison to marketing, distribution, layout, and EDITING...

er. Nearly ALL the cost of paper back and hardcover books was in printing and distribution. Editing is a one-time thing, and accounts for even less of the cost than authoring, and the author literally sees pennies from each book. I dont know the *exact* breakdown of the cost of authoring/editing/publishing/distributing books, but i know its the last 2 that make up the vast majority, and the last 2 that are no longer issues with digital distribution...

Realistically, if the authors self 'electronically published', I'm betting the actual FAIR price for a book would be around $2... and that would be giving the author and editor more than what they currently make.

Actual university proffs did this same thing with MP3's a few years ago, and found that if the entire distribution system was adapted, and all the irrelevant aspects were cut out, the cost for each music track would be 5 cents... 5cents, and the artist's and publishers would make the same amount.

Really puts into context just how fucking greedy most of the publishers are, eh? You are under the impression that buying a CD or book really helps the artist, but in reality they get chump change, while the publishers rake in a ton of royalties.

>>515521
>>515540 Consider that now it's as easy as purchasing a legit copy of an e-book, stripping it of its DRM and converting it to ePUB, and then re-releasing it.

This. They dont actually re-scan it or anything.

What you are describing is like having someone listen to a song, and than try to re-create it with their own instruments... Ripping is taking something that is already a digital copy, and striping off any DRM and re-encoding.

technology is a bitch

>>515568

> I'm betting the actual FAIR price for a book would be around $2

$2 may be what you would pay, but it's not necessarily what the market would bear.

Printing is not a zero cost, but it does not constitute anywhere near the majority of the cost of making a book.

>>515553
Yeah, its user replaceable, but look at the battery... Its a non-standard one, which is as good as not being user replaceable, since the only place you'll find a replacement battery is from barnes and noble.

Difference between it and *ALL* the other quality ebook readers is you do the work instead of them. 10 years down the line after the nook 3 or 4 is out, you'll be kidding yourself if you think they'll still actively stock/build those batteries, and you'll be in the EXACT same situation as kindle/kindle2 users.

Same shit happened to people who bought the Creative Zen. A big selling feature for it over the ipod mini's(yeah, this is back in 200'4-2005) was the user replaceable batteries. Good luck actually finding a quality zen replacement battery now a days...

I had this discussion the other day with my friend. I'm for ebooks (not so much the readers, but the ability to get books online) simply because it greatly helps the distribution of information to people who couldn't otherwise (say a books banned or something like that). Our culture just breeds us to treat objects with affection.

>>515576
Breakdown of the cost of creating a $50 book
-25 to publisher
-4 for printing
-5 for inventory and obsolence
-2-3 for royalties
-5 for selling and marketing
-5 for overhead and warehousing
-1 for co-op
-2 for editorial and marketing

so basically %50 goes directly to the publishing company as a hedge against its failure(which is totally not necessary anymore since the cost of production today is literally the time spent by the author and editor. There is no physical stock or logistics of distribution/storage)
~30% is also redundant because of the lack of printing and distribution.
The actual cost, if the book is 100% digital, should be 20% of a physical book. Yet we are charged the exact same. So instead of the publisher making 50% off hedging a potential failure, they are making 80% with *ZERO* risk.

Shameless.

>>515596

Smaller, independent publishing houses could be an answer here.

That said, we are in rocky times where a publishing house could not be able to swing the ebook-only market just yet. Also, increased risk of piracy with an all-ebook format means that there is exponentially greater shrinkage.

I've been to a conference on ebooks by a cognitive science researcher who stated that since 15 years ebooks on their contents, they just improved the technicals sides of the devices.
He said that back in the late 90s, ebooks had better screens and some of them let you take notes or use a dictionary for free, features enhance the reading, but that you don't find in every ebooks nowadays.

His studies showed on a panel of people that most people thought that it was harder to remember what they've read, because of the lack of physical support.

>>515608
Piracy is a non-concern. Simply, most people are too idiotic to bother with pirating anything. I can't tell you how many of my friends are terrified of bittorrent after downloading some virus that borked their computer.

This means that the smart people who know how to pirate will always be a minority. We won't eat into the profit margins.

>>515610

WHERE ARE THESE STUDIES

I DON'T WANT HEARSAY, I WANT COMPETENT EVIDENCE IN ADMISSIBLE FORM

>>515612

A "non-concern?" That is divorced from reality. I bought an eReader recently and had zero problem pirating popular books for my own enjoyment, no viruses, nothing more complicated than clicking. Everyone I know with an ereader talks about pirating books as a benefit of owning an ereader, and these are not neckbeareded tech geeks who are doing this.

>>515610

For the 45th time ITT, yes you can take notes and use a free dictionary in ereaders today.

>>515619
Perhaps the people you know populate the minority. All my friends know how to pirate because I associate with people who share my interests and mentality.

The people I'm not friends with don't know how to pirate.

>>515619

To expand on this point: I don't think piracy will destroy literature, no more than piracy has destroyed music (it hasn't), but it's still something you have to factor in. A company that only or primarily sells ebooks, especially a smaller company, could easily lose hundreds of sales through piracy. While not every pirate was necessarily going to buy a legit copy a nonzero number probably would have.

That said, this could go into the cost of the ebook. If, for sake of argument, $2 could handsomely support our author/editor duo, then $4 should be more than enough to defray the cost of piracy.

>>515625

Speaking as someone who is friends with people are not friends with: yes, they know how to pirate, too. Even sweet 23-year-old girls who read Twilight and Austen know how to pirate whatever they want.

It's easy. And if they don't know how, they'll ask around. It will also only be a matter of time before book piracy becomes as elegant and simple as music piracy.

>>515627
I'm curious if you think there's anything to the notion that people will somehow evaluate the book as being of lesser value when it's priced at 2 or 4 dollars instead of the 14.99 that Amazon prices their books at?

Of course, objectively we know that the intrinsic value of the words contained within has not changed, but humor me. Crowd psychology.

>>515635

I think that that is a definite possibility, but then again, libraries and the free lending of books to friends is something that has existed for a long, long time.

It's a bit of a fluke that the reading of books was something enjoyed by most people outside of school anyhow. It is what it is.

>>515608
Piracy becomes less of an issue when the pricing is fair. Thats what pisses me off the most about the RIAA.. They say they have to charge higher prices for music to make up for the lost revenue from pirates... But simple logic dictates there would be fewer pirates if the pricing model was fair(Again, professors have said 5 cents per track)

If the price reflecting something fair like 5% profit margin, people wouldnt feel justified when they steal music that provides the industry with something like 300% profit margins. It also would be low enough that people would splurge on tracks even if they only wanted to listen to them once or twice.

In the long run, everyone would be happier if someone in the industry shook things up and truly shifted the market for a sensible pricing scheme. The longer it takes them to do that, the more irritated the fans who actually understand whats going on will become, the louder they will speak, the more people will learn, and suddenly a few thousand annoyed nerds on the internet will turn into hundreds of millions.

Remember, it isnt at all convenient to pirate now a days... Most people would be willing to pay a fair price if they were guaranteed quality and rights over the content. It would be far easier to undercut the pirates, than take them head-on while trying to play the moral card(i dont give a fuck if my music is stolen and the band gets $0.00 from me, instead of $0.02. I honestly dont think they'll miss the 2 pennies)

>>515615
Well, I'm sorry, I'm french so the stuff might be quite hard to find. The researcher's name is Jean Gabriel Ganascia.
>>515621
Yes, you can, but still, this guy said that there wasn't so much features available compared to a real book.
And he said lacking the physical structure with pages and stuff it was harder to remember what you've read.
That's why he developped something he called "Islands of memory", a programm that would help you through your reading, making a map out of the book, and showing exactly where you are, like a cloud of data...
He worked with authors too, to make another feature that will show you, while navigating through a text, what where the previous versions of it and so on.
He made algorithms that will help you grasping the concepts behind the words, showing you the differents versions and the lexical fields, to get a better understanding of the text.

>>515643

Thanks, I'll check out Jean Gabriel Ganascia.

I'm still confused about him talking about the "features" of a real book. I don't have a dictionary in my actual books, except in a dictionary. Books don't let you highlight themselves - you have to buy tools to do that for you.

Then again, I can kill centipedes with regular books. I can't with ebooks.

>>515650
I can kill centipedes with my e-reader. It's even got a beveled edge, with which, I imagine, incising them would be as easy as pie.

>>515643
>Yes, you can, but still, this guy said that there wasn't so much features available compared to a real book.

This guy sounds like a moron. A real book has one and only one feature, words. An ebook has dozens of features. Why are you listening to someone who says thing that stupid which are obviously wrong?

>>515610
Thats bullshit. The biggest step foward in ebooks, have been the e-paper. Early e-books in the 90's were more like over-sized PDA's than actual ebooks. Simply, the things we have now(like the nook and kindle) were not really made to take on the ebook readers of 2 decades ago, because people didnt WANT those features.
ebook reader of 1990's = glorified PDA, with ugly display and shit battery life.
ebook reader today = a reader that offers fewer features, while staying true to what is expected of a book, with a few extra features(like a built-in dictionary)

If you wanted to truly compare those early ebook readers to what we have today, the best example would be the ipad... Its isnt trying to hide the fact that its a computer platform first...

I have a feeling that if I get an ebook, then I'm disappointing Bradbury and Huxley in someway.

>>515662

How?

It would make more sense if you felt that way if you bought a TV or a video game console

>>515654
>>515657
Well, I don't know anything about ebooks, but he said that since ten or 15 years, only the battery and maybe the size has changed, according to him, the way you read hasn't change so much.
But the main problem he worked on was the fact that you don't learn as much as you do with a paper book.
With a paper book you use that tactile sense some people described, the pages, the location of the words in the page, all those things that aren't "features" that you can get in a computer, but are very important in the way you read.
With an ebook you just scroll through the text, what that researcher made was developping features to get that text feeling back, features to enhance the reading.
Because a book is an object and the readers let you read anything, you don't really read "books" or piece of writings, you just consume them...

>>515666
>But the main problem he worked on was the fact that you don't learn as much as you do with a paper book.

Which is utter bullshit with zero evidence. The information is identical.

>>515662
I'm fucking lolling here. You are all man-children. There are, what seems to me, like, five intelligent, articulate people all working independently to dispel people of their misconceptions surrounding e-readers. They have, it seems to me, succeeded.

But when you come up against someone who says:

>I have a feeling that if I get an ebook, then I'm disappointing Bradbury and Huxley in someway.

There are no words. I face palm'd.

>>515672
I don't have any figures, and I don't really care, but that guy has a neuroscience researcher gave a bunch of ereaders to a bunch of people and then studied them. Then if you don't believe you don't get the same sense of reading while scrolling a text or while using spatial elements, I won't argue anymore.

>>515675
troll'd mad son

"Well, I don't know anything about ebooks, but he said that since ten or 15 years, only the battery and maybe the size has changed, according to him, the way you read hasn't change so much.
But the main problem he worked on was the fact that you don't learn as much as you do with a paper book."

Actually, ereaders have changed quite a bit, especially with regard to the tech behind e-ink. He is demonstrably wrong here, which makes his conclusions suspect.

"With an ebook you just scroll through the text, what that researcher made was developping features to get that text feeling back, features to enhance the reading.
Because a book is an object and the readers let you read anything, you don't really read "books" or piece of writings, you just consume them..."

What? By adding features that COMPUTERS and not BOOKS have, he's making them more like books? But here he's demonstrably wrong again.

Also, I hate to break it to you, but books are, physically, a totally passive experience. You turn pages and read words. Your brain does the rest. Ditto for ereaders. Books do not come with dictionaries or graphs or even highlighting capabilities.

"He made algorithms that will help you grasping the concepts behind the words, showing you the differents versions and the lexical fields, to get a better understanding of the text."

This is amusing, but it's also wholly daffy.

>>515700
What I meant, is, while reading a book, you have a spatial experience.
Your eyes remember better the text because they link the meaning with it's spacial place, like top of page, middle, place in the book and so on. The way you go through a book is not linear like in a e-reader. This is just how the architecture of the book is. I don't have the proper vocabulary to write about it, but you should get me.

>>515704
Unfortunalety I don't have the material the lecturer used, because it's not only yet, but he studied the work of a french poetess.
Like an english (or french) major would, he studied the text, but he had the advantage to have differents versions of the text, and he compiled those versions of the text to show what the author added between each, like one version she would emphasize on an emotion, or in another one use a lexical field, but it gets mixed at the end in the text.
The researcher developed algorithms to spot with different versions of the text those variations, and this could get featured in a e-book, like you can watch the source code of a webpage.