Classic Conversation Thread

[DAR]

Hey sometimes keeping an old issue of Penthouse or Hustler around helps prevent some wonky virus from spreading.

[Rorschach]

1 hour ago, CoolioD1 said:

i hope my boss doesn't find out but i think like half of my twitter followers are bots. i might be fully unemployable.

The amount of people I follow vs the number of people that follow me is a ridiculously high difference. I follow 500+ people.

 

Spoiler

But I only have 67 followers 

 

 

[WrathOfHan]

Been coughing nonstop for the past two hours and my chest is getting tight.

 

[Dementeleus]

1 minute ago, WrathOfHan said:

Been coughing nonstop for the past two hours and my chest is getting tight.

 

 

Mucinex!

[The Panda]

1 hour ago, Just Tele said:

 

Well, textbooks.....  

 

And yes, there are advantages to e-books for sure. Less paper and less physical space taken up are big pluses. But in terms of the actual process of reading (and the apparatus of reading), it's really really hard to beat pages of paper bound together.

It could also be a generational thing.  I've had access to the internet for most of my life, so I've done much more digital reading.  I could see how people who didn't grow up in an internet age would have a bit more attachment to reading off of paper.

 

1 hour ago, Barnack said:

Relevant only if the tablet would have still been bought otherwise, because you would need a giant amount of book to cause the population of one tablet (and cutting tree tend to be carbon neutral)

I think even if it's a table specifically for reading (although most tablets are multi-purposed now), you're buying much more than just one book on it. One book versus one tablet, book's better.  But let's say 5-6 textbooks a semester, plus various other forms of books and the paper from the books starts to stack up quickly.  Obviously, not everybody needs 5-6 textbooks a semester, so the convenience factor of having your books under one folder varies depending the person

[Dementeleus]

4 minutes ago, New Year New Panda said:

It could also be a generational thing.  I've had access to the internet for most of my life, so I've done much more digital reading.  I could see how people who didn't grow up in an internet age would have a bit more attachment to reading off of paper.

 

(Let's put aside textbooks for the moment, they're essentially a specialized and separate category.)

 

Attachment has something to do with it, yes. But there's some benefit just to the medium... you can quickly and easily riff forwards and backwards to any page you choose, far easier than you can with an e-book. A paperback is light, durable over the course of reading, easily reparable, yet cheap enough that you're entirely unconcerned with damaging it to the point of non-use (you can toss it, drop it, submerge it in water, etc without destroying it). And while battery life is long with e-ink, paperbacks don't need any power whatsoever.

 

Then there's the care spent on (most) mass-market published books that simply isn't done with their e-versions (whether or not there's a digital equivalent): typography, layout, kerning, spacing, are all generally superior in printed books. (paging @4815162342 and @MrPink)

 

E-books have improved, but they're not helped by the fact that most e-readers now default to a few internal fonts. The reading experience feels less unique because the fonts are exactly the same from book to book.

 

I get how and why e-books have become so popular. I generally buy them myself, especially for casual, disposable stuff that I'm not sure I'd re-read. But I still buy the occasional print edition, and still prefer reading them regardless.

[Barnack]

16 minutes ago, New Year New Panda said:

I think even if it's a table specifically for reading (although most tablets are multi-purposed now), you're buying much more than just one book on it. One book versus one tablet, book's better.  But let's say 5-6 textbooks a semester, plus various other forms of books and the paper from the books starts to stack up quickly.  Obviously, not everybody needs 5-6 textbooks a semester, so the convenience factor of having your books under one folder varies depending the person

From what I remember, if one person would have bought I ink type tablet, yes if it replace one daily newpapers + say 30 book a year, it could have been good for the environment, but regular touch screen type tablet with the power they have people buy.... it is probably impossible to read enough for that.

 

A bit the same with computers/email/internet, if we would have used computer just for text, they would have been better for the environment, they would have been good for 35/50 year's, not consumed much electricity, but we rapidly used image/video/sound instead of text and now the Internet is getting close to 5% of the world energy and much bigger pollution to everything paper style it was suppose to replace. 

 

If we would be using cars to do what horse did they would be much more environmental also (and they were brought because Horse in cities was starting to be a terrible source of pollution), but we made them tons more heavy than they need to be and used them to go 20 times faster than horse.

 

That is usually what happen with more efficient innovation, instead of consuming less doing the same we often use them to do much much more.

[The Panda]

9 minutes ago, Just Tele said:

 

(Let's put aside textbooks for the moment, they're essentially a specialized and separate category.)

 

Attachment has something to do with it, yes. But there's some benefit just to the medium... you can quickly and easily riff forwards and backwards to any page you choose, far easier than you can with an e-book. A paperback is light, durable over the course of reading, easily reparable, yet cheap enough that you're entirely unconcerned with damaging it to the point of non-use (you can toss it, drop it, submerge it in water, etc without destroying it). And while battery life is long with e-ink, paperbacks don't need any power whatsoever.

 

Then there's the care spent on (most) mass-market published books that simply isn't done with their e-versions (whether or not there's a digital equivalent): typography, layout, kerning, spacing, are all generally superior in printed books. (paging @4815162342 and @MrPink)

 

E-books have improved, but they're not helped by the fact that most e-readers now default to a few internal fonts. The reading experience feels less unique because the fonts are exactly the same from book to book.

 

I get how and why e-books have become so popular. I generally buy them myself, especially for casual, disposable stuff that I'm not sure I'd re-read. But I still buy the occasional print edition, and still prefer reading them regardless.

I get the argument for paper books and why people might prefer them.  I personally prefer digital reading, but I also read less for the artistic experience and more for a quantative one.  I reckon sitting down and reading a novel for fun could be more enjoyable on a couch with a paperback novel.

[The Futurist]

Yup, so much for the "Tech Companies are green, people, these people are so clever they will save the world."

No they aren't.

You can't defy the laws of physics I am afraid.

Yeah, Elon I am talking about you, among other professional greenwashers  ...

[4815162342]

15 minutes ago, Just Tele said:

 

Then there's the care spent on (most) mass-market published books that simply isn't done with their e-versions (whether or not there's a digital equivalent): typography, layout, kerning, spacing, are all generally superior in printed books. (paging @4815162342 and @MrPink)

 

 

I feel like there is a message here about some old Tele saltiness

[Dementeleus]

4 minutes ago, 4815162342 said:

 

I feel like there is a message here about some old Tele saltiness

 

Witch, er... Which saltiness would that be?

Wild to think that some people would try to

hunt me down just for talking about ligatures and line breaks.

[DAR]

I still go with a mixture of reading paper and digital.  If I want something really bad it’s certainly more convenient for me to buy it right there.   I do like purchasing my comics digitally 

[aabattery]

You haven't lived till you've read a book one line at a time through a pager.

[Goffe]

Does anyone here watch Bro vs. videos on youtube? It’s hilarious. 

[Avatree]

5 hours ago, RandomYojimbo said:

Christ...he had 50,000 images of underage kids. creepy.

who the fuck has 50,000 images of ANYTHING on their computer? 

sad regardless.

 

Edited January 31, 2018 by Tree Billboards

[Avatree]

28 minutes ago, Just Tele said:

 

(Let's put aside textbooks for the moment, they're essentially a specialized and separate category.)

 

Attachment has something to do with it, yes. But there's some benefit just to the medium... you can quickly and easily riff forwards and backwards to any page you choose, far easier than you can with an e-book. A paperback is light, durable over the course of reading, easily reparable, yet cheap enough that you're entirely unconcerned with damaging it to the point of non-use (you can toss it, drop it, submerge it in water, etc without destroying it). And while battery life is long with e-ink, paperbacks don't need any power whatsoever.

 

Then there's the care spent on (most) mass-market published books that simply isn't done with their e-versions (whether or not there's a digital equivalent): typography, layout, kerning, spacing, are all generally superior in printed books. (paging @4815162342 and @MrPink)

 

E-books have improved, but they're not helped by the fact that most e-readers now default to a few internal fonts. The reading experience feels less unique because the fonts are exactly the same from book to book.

 

I get how and why e-books have become so popular. I generally buy them myself, especially for casual, disposable stuff that I'm not sure I'd re-read. But I still buy the occasional print edition, and still prefer reading them regardless.

people used to say that about videotapes. you can run them back to front and you can the exact bit you want. but for the vast majority, digital is easier to use for the main purpose i.e. watching the video. or reading the text.

 

 

Don't shoot me though, I dont read so have no ball in either ground.

[The Futurist]

The Glee Cast Curse is real.

Sweet Yeezus.

[Dementeleus]

16 minutes ago, Tree Billboards said:

 

I don't read...

 

 

 

That's far worse than anything else.

 

(And that example's not very good, at least in terms of any sort of longform content like a book.)

Edited January 31, 2018 by Just Tele

[IronJimbo]

45 minutes ago, The Futurist said:

Yup, so much for the "Tech Companies are green, people, these people are so clever they will save the world."

No they aren't.

You can't defy the laws of physics I am afraid.

Yeah, Elon I am talking about you, among other professional greenwashers  ...

I know someone who is clever and wants to save the world

[That One Girl]

3 hours ago, Chewy said:

the replies to this tweet!

 

 

 

Passion of the Christ: Here We Go Again!