 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 3 Feb 2002 01:06:19 -0000, Rick [Kitty5] wrote:
> Real books don't get downloaded once and then distributed illegally. end of
> argument really.
You'd be surprised.
--
#local R=rgb 99;#local P=R-R;#local F=pigment{gradient x}box{0,1pigment{gradient
y pigment_map{[.5F pigment_map{[.3R][.3F color_map{[.15red 99][.15P]}rotate z*45
translate x]}]#local H=pigment{gradient y color_map{[.5P][.5R]}scale 1/3}[.5F
pigment_map{[.3R][.3H][.7H][.7R]}]}}}camera{location.5-3*z}//only my opinions
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Rick [Kitty5]" <ric### [at] kitty5 com> wrote :
>
> Real books don't get downloaded once and then distributed illegally.
Of course they do. Well... the "distributed illegally" part at least. A
week after a book is released in hardback it's been scanned, OCRed and
posted. There is no way to avoid that sort of thing other than making it
generally available and depending upon the money made from those who -do-
pay for what they want.
Illegal distribution is not likely to cause any diminution in the actual
sales of a book. In fact, there is a good chance that it increases the sales
by allowing people to peruse the book in the same way they might in a book
store. Yes, it's wrong, no, it's not detrimental.
The problem comes when people try to re-publish the book and sell it.
That's piracy and is both wrong and harmful. It is also just as unavoidable,
in that publishing a e-book does not change the chance of it happening.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Real books don't get downloaded once and
> then distributed illegally. end of argument really.
I beg to differ. I've got a friend who downloads tons of RL books like that.
They scan, OCR, and PDF them. I don't know how they have so much patience.
They do a very good job too.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Dearmad" <dea### [at] applesnakenet> wrote in message
news:3C5### [at] applesnakenet...
> No thank you. Yuck to all e-options as the *only* option. If
> packaged in *addition* to a book made of dead tree parts, that
> would be fine, but I want trees slaughtered so I can hold it in
> my hands and flip the pages.
>
"This book is made of 100% recycled trees"
The only thing I find e-books tolerable for is when I know the book well and
just want to search for something in particular.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Tom Melly" <tom### [at] tomandlucouk> wrote :
>
> "This book is made of 100% recycled trees"
>
> The only thing I find e-books tolerable for is when I know the book well
and
> just want to search for something in particular.
That's what I thought until I started using them regularly. While they
will never replace paper for me, I have acquired a taste for reading on the
screen. I choose a large font and readjust my chair for a more relaxed
position and move my keyboard so that I can reach the page-down key from
where my arm naturally lays...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I can't wait till that e-ink technology really takes off.
Sure will be great to carry around a couple books in one "page". :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Bill DeWitt" <bde### [at] cflrrcom> wrote in message
news:3c5fd620@news.povray.org...
>
> That's what I thought until I started using them regularly. While they
> will never replace paper for me, I have acquired a taste for reading on the
> screen. I choose a large font and readjust my chair for a more relaxed
> position and move my keyboard so that I can reach the page-down key from
> where my arm naturally lays...
>
Well, I do that for kareoke... I dunno, it just seems that e-books, with current
technology, and despite the obvious advantages, are, ergonomically, a step
backwards*.
* or is that a step sideways? "Backwards" implies a return to something
abandoned - ancient egyptian lcd's. No, "sideways" is no good, since it isn't
negative. Ah, phooey.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Tom Melly" <tom### [at] tomandlucouk> wrote in message
news:3c5ff0fa@news.povray.org...
> "Bill DeWitt" <bde### [at] cflrrcom> wrote in message
> news:3c5fd620@news.povray.org...
> >
> > That's what I thought until I started using them regularly. While
they
> > will never replace paper for me, I have acquired a taste for reading on
the
> > screen. I choose a large font and readjust my chair for a more relaxed
> > position and move my keyboard so that I can reach the page-down key from
> > where my arm naturally lays...
> >
>
> Well, I do that for kareoke... I dunno, it just seems that e-books, with
current
> technology, and despite the obvious advantages, are, ergonomically, a step
> backwards*.
Ergonomically?!?! I have a -much- better posture and can read for
a -much- longer time when I set up here to read something as compared to a
book. Books require odd positioning, props and pillows, arms that fall
asleep, weird lights that hang off the bedposts on little cranes....
Give me a large screen and an arm rest anytime.
O course, my lovely wife hates it when I bring the large screen to bed
with me so I won't be going full e-book any time soon.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Forgive my ignorence, I have never used an eBook. It would seem that
one possible advantage would be a flexible ability to update
information. Is that part of the eBook model?
-Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] aolcom> wrote in message
news:3C6### [at] aolcom...
>
>
> Forgive my ignorence, I have never used an eBook. It would seem that
> one possible advantage would be a flexible ability to update
> information. Is that part of the eBook model?
Should be, but mostly isn't.
I think that will change in a year or two as authors find that they need
to keep adding value to keep attracting readers.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
