The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Tomorrow is World Book Day so I thought I'd start a discussion on books.
Do you think people read less now than before? How many books do you read in a year?
I'm still undecided over whether to read the new Hitch-hikers Guide to the Galaxy book. In a way it feels wrong that it's a HHGTTG book without Adams writing it, but I also want to see how well it fits.
I must admit that I don't read half as much as I did, it's very hard to sit down with a book when you have kids. I guess I read stuff on the internet more at the moment but I'd love the chance to get back in to reading properly. I'm a member of Amazon Vine, which lets you test out specific products each month and there are loads of books from new and old authors on there, so it's a good way of getting me to read something. Sometimes it's a pleasant surprise and at other times it's a slog to get through a book.
Do you think people read less now than before? How many books do you read in a year?
I'm still undecided over whether to read the new Hitch-hikers Guide to the Galaxy book. In a way it feels wrong that it's a HHGTTG book without Adams writing it, but I also want to see how well it fits.
I must admit that I don't read half as much as I did, it's very hard to sit down with a book when you have kids. I guess I read stuff on the internet more at the moment but I'd love the chance to get back in to reading properly. I'm a member of Amazon Vine, which lets you test out specific products each month and there are loads of books from new and old authors on there, so it's a good way of getting me to read something. Sometimes it's a pleasant surprise and at other times it's a slog to get through a book.
Page:
I don't think it really matters wether a book is digital or paper. Digitally, you don't have the same environmental issues as paper books at all, and it's also easier to carry round many books at the same time. Simple things like finding the page that you're on is easier aswell. Myself, I prefer the idea of electronic books, but I'd never use them oddly. If your battery runs out, you can't continue reading, that's one problem with electronic books :P And also the fact that classic publishers would go out of buisness, unless they transferred to producing eBooks.
Garin wrote:
> Gold Timbo wrote:
> But surely the production costs and carbon footprint of
> upgrading
> a world supply of e-book players every few years would have just
> as much impact as the amount of paper created to make books?
>
> Oh, not to mention the electricity costs of running them all.
> Books don't drain any power sat on a shelf after being produced.
>
> The point is if you cut down all our trees we're all dead.
> Admittedly that would reduce our carbon footprint significantly.
> :)
Aye true, but it isn't trees being cut down for books which is having that sort of impact. There are a lot of trees in the world, wood needed for books amounts a tiny fraction of those trees (possibly), the actual problem is they aren't being used reasonably on a global scale.
And besides, I buy a lot of books printed on recycled paper, and it often tends to be the way they're printed these days.
I know what you're saying though.
> Gold Timbo wrote:
> But surely the production costs and carbon footprint of
> upgrading
> a world supply of e-book players every few years would have just
> as much impact as the amount of paper created to make books?
>
> Oh, not to mention the electricity costs of running them all.
> Books don't drain any power sat on a shelf after being produced.
>
> The point is if you cut down all our trees we're all dead.
> Admittedly that would reduce our carbon footprint significantly.
> :)
Aye true, but it isn't trees being cut down for books which is having that sort of impact. There are a lot of trees in the world, wood needed for books amounts a tiny fraction of those trees (possibly), the actual problem is they aren't being used reasonably on a global scale.
And besides, I buy a lot of books printed on recycled paper, and it often tends to be the way they're printed these days.
I know what you're saying though.
Gold Timbo wrote:
> But surely the production costs and carbon footprint of upgrading
> a world supply of e-book players every few years would have just
> as much impact as the amount of paper created to make books?
>
> Oh, not to mention the electricity costs of running them all.
> Books don't drain any power sat on a shelf after being produced.
The point is if you cut down all our trees we're all dead. Admittedly that would reduce our carbon footprint significantly. :)
> But surely the production costs and carbon footprint of upgrading
> a world supply of e-book players every few years would have just
> as much impact as the amount of paper created to make books?
>
> Oh, not to mention the electricity costs of running them all.
> Books don't drain any power sat on a shelf after being produced.
The point is if you cut down all our trees we're all dead. Admittedly that would reduce our carbon footprint significantly. :)
Art is a big passion for me. So i've spend a fair bit of time reading graphic novels, art books (like drawing or comic book illistration).
Oh and theres also the IT revision books. Part of my career.
Oh and theres also the IT revision books. Part of my career.
Garin wrote:
> Gold Timbo wrote:
> Those e-book readers are sacrilege! I'm so whole-heartedly
> against them I can't even begin to describe.
>
> Some might argue its sacrilege to cut down hundreds of thousands
> of trees a year to publish books when there are viable digital
> alternatives.
But surely the production costs and carbon footprint of upgrading a world supply of e-book players every few years would have just as much impact as the amount of paper created to make books?
Oh, not to mention the electricity costs of running them all. Books don't drain any power sat on a shelf after being produced.
> Gold Timbo wrote:
> Those e-book readers are sacrilege! I'm so whole-heartedly
> against them I can't even begin to describe.
>
> Some might argue its sacrilege to cut down hundreds of thousands
> of trees a year to publish books when there are viable digital
> alternatives.
But surely the production costs and carbon footprint of upgrading a world supply of e-book players every few years would have just as much impact as the amount of paper created to make books?
Oh, not to mention the electricity costs of running them all. Books don't drain any power sat on a shelf after being produced.
To be honest I stopped using VCR's because companies stopped producing them, DVD's weren't cheaper to buy, it was just something eventually forced upon me. Better electronic means of communication have been around for decades, but it doesn't mean no one uses paper any more. I remember when the civil service first got computers and declared that they'd soon have paper-free offices, I'm still waiting for it to happen.
At the end of the day DVD's were seen by the masses as a better alternative to VCR, which is why VCR eventually died out. I don't know anyone except a few people on the internet who think e-book readers are any cop, but I know plenty of people in my own surroundings who still read books and say they'll continue to as long as they can.
Don't get me wrong, I'm sure one day in the future books will stop being produced and it'll all be on tablets, but I can't see it happening for many many years.
At the end of the day DVD's were seen by the masses as a better alternative to VCR, which is why VCR eventually died out. I don't know anyone except a few people on the internet who think e-book readers are any cop, but I know plenty of people in my own surroundings who still read books and say they'll continue to as long as they can.
Don't get me wrong, I'm sure one day in the future books will stop being produced and it'll all be on tablets, but I can't see it happening for many many years.
No but you had a VCR right? Why stop using a VCR? Because DVDs are lighter and cheaper, less damage to environment and better quality right? Well same with ebooks. Lighter, cheaper, more enviromentally friendly and better quality.
Tablets are the future. You have bookstores closing, newspapers and magazines going out of business. We're recycling almost everything and trying to cut down on our carbon footprint. Books are as dead as the trees they use to be.
Hurray for science!
Tablets are the future. You have bookstores closing, newspapers and magazines going out of business. We're recycling almost everything and trying to cut down on our carbon footprint. Books are as dead as the trees they use to be.
Hurray for science!
Gold Timbo wrote:
> Those e-book readers are sacrilege! I'm so whole-heartedly
> against them I can't even begin to describe.
Some might argue its sacrilege to cut down hundreds of thousands of trees a year to publish books when there are viable digital alternatives.
> Those e-book readers are sacrilege! I'm so whole-heartedly
> against them I can't even begin to describe.
Some might argue its sacrilege to cut down hundreds of thousands of trees a year to publish books when there are viable digital alternatives.
The thing is that the difference between e-book readers and DVD players is that I couldn't already play DVD's with my own hands.
Alfonse wrote:
> How would this give you more time to read? Because you can't go
> out and enjoy life with the money you wasted?
That's why my example was if he had won one. :)
DVD players use to cost a few hundred pounds. Maybe in a few years with more competition, ebook readers will come down in price too.
> How would this give you more time to read? Because you can't go
> out and enjoy life with the money you wasted?
That's why my example was if he had won one. :)
DVD players use to cost a few hundred pounds. Maybe in a few years with more competition, ebook readers will come down in price too.
Page: