Bill Strosberg <oclug [ at ] strosberg [ dot ] com> wrote: > Although the young folks will take exception to this, Yes, the young folks, so reliably uniform in opinion. I have friends of about my age [21 years] who much prefer dead trees. > eBooks are a poor, flawed approximation of the dead tree versions, Dead tree books and eBooks are both poor, flawed approximations of the work itself. > Dead tree books can't disappear through DRM measures and failure > to feed the meter every month. Neither can my eBooks. > They can't be tied to a platform, a vendor or an employer. Neither can my eBooks. > Battery life is infinite with dead trees. True. Dead trees win here. Tho I hope you're not exposing the cellulose to an oxygen-rich atmosphere. > I don't get headaches from dead tree books. I don't get headaches from eBooks. > eBooks don't show enough readable size content per screen > (I hate to say "page" in eBook context), If fixed-page, it's no worse than a dead tree book. If reflowable, one can resize the window, and perhaps get a bigger screen. > I'm used to scanning two pages of dead tree books in a glance. One can use a 2-page eBook view. > There is a substance to real books I like. That's your preference. Paper weight is wrecking my back. > eBooks resize content based on platform, screen > resolutions and user so there is no common frame of > reference that can be easily shared. Chapters. Sections. --- I can't open arbitrarily many copies of a dead tree book. I can't easily grep thru a dead tree book. I can't read a dead tree book over the network. Bill Strosberg <oclug [ at ] strosberg [ dot ] com> wrote: > I hate Java Here we agree ☺