> I've got no respect for /real books/, their large volumes messing around
> with home space, their smell and yellow pages as they get old and the
> forests killed to make them.

Uhuh.

Last time I checked, most paper comes from renewable sources these days. 
People grow trees as crops, much as they crow wheat or barley as crops. 
There's a lot of profit to be made from renewable wood and paper.

Electronics, on the other hand, requires large amounts of energy for its 
production, and lots of exotic and usually toxic substances that are 
rare and difficult to find, and difficult to deal with once the device 
is no longer wanted.

And, uh, /which/ one of these is more sustainable?

As for the rest, I possess quite a few books, and none of them are 
yellow yet. Space is a valid concern.

>> Besides, who wants a system that can delete the books you've paid for
>> at any time, for no defined reason?
>
> that's plain FUD last time I heard, both from tree killers and
> traditional book publishers.

Erm, no, it's a documented fact. People actually have had their books 
deleted. Twice.

>> Still, it's not without advantages. (Size and weight being the obvious
>> ones, but also the ability to enlarge the text to the point that even
>> my grandparents can read it.) They're just not advances that are
>> especially important to me.
>
> beside all those awesome advantages, you can also simply buy a new book
> in the middle of the night when you see fit.

That is quite neat, but given how often I buy books, hardly persuasive. 
Plus there's the utterly tiny range of books available for the Kindle. 
(I have no idea about other e-readers, but the Kindle range is very 
small indeed.)

Post a reply to this message