Digital. Never understood what everyone finds so special about paper.
Paper is physical, we can touch it and it feels good doing it. Digital is not physical, we can see it but never touch it. :D
That and the fact that if one day technology fail us, paper (Books) will still be there.
Whether you can touch the digital pages or not depends entirely on how you define "touch". Besides, the only point of words is the idea associated behind them. Whether you hear or see them is irrelevant, you just need to identify them. Touching only becomes relevant if we're talking about Braille.
Also, in my opinion, paper feels uncomfortable.
Technology will fail us and books will still be there? Can I have access to your future-predicting crystal ball to verify this?
Next time your phone dies or when you are using the computer and the power goes out. Books will still be avalible to read long after your battery had died.
Oh, you want my future-predicting crystal ball!? Why, head to Chinatown and you can purchase it for 4.99...
Read my post before trying to be sarcastic. I explicitly place an IF in my sentence and never said that "Technology WILL failed us and books will still be there"
I was referring to the fact that you assume books are undisputed immortals who will stay with mankind forever.
Why wouldn't they stay if technology one day fail? We will need a way to store information and if technology was somehow destroyed or made unusable, it would be natural to think that we will revert back to a slightly more primitive way of doing things.
If it's a paperback, it's screwed. That I can state with some plausibility of it happening.
To be honest, we have lost plenty of books over the centuries, so books are not always going to be here.
Not all of them but some of them will. Just because we lost books over the centuries doesn't means we won't make them should technology fail us.
But what Sindiriv is saying is that books can be lost as well, which you argued saying that they would stay even if technology will fail.
Your point being?
Okay, what I am saying is that IF technology fails us, we will eventually turn back to a primitive way of storing information - Books.
Sindiriv is saying the books can be lost as well - And? His point is? IF technology already fails us and we lost a couple of books, we would still make more in order to keep things in check. I never once said that books are immortal, he said that I did, all I said was that books will still be there IF technology fails us.
Okay so let's say both Books and Technology are lost. What do you think we will do to store information?
Why are we restraining your argument? The same thing can be said here.
If BOOKS were lost, we could use technology.
It's unlikely, but technology failing is also unlikely. It's the fact that your argument for using books is that technology will be lost.
As for your edit, nearly all authors would stop writing of technology was lost.
If we lost computers, how many people do you think would write full on books? Not many.
Your pretty much saying that of lost a whole aspect of society, and then lost books, we would write using paper. The argument by itself is flawed since technology is used to write nowadays.
Let's change your statement again.
Let's say we lost the capability to write on paper (or that paper is ridiculously expensive, since nearly all the tress in the world are gone), and technology was still there. Would we read on the computer? Yes.
That's exactly what your arguing here. If you couldn't use technology, what would you do? I would read on paper. That doesn't prove your argument at all.
My argument is that books will stay even if technology is lost. They have been here way before all the electronic devices people uses to read e-book and will continue to be whether technology fails or not.
I'm just saying that if we lost the technology of nowadays, we would revert back to the past methods of storing information - Books.
I like having the satisfaction of reading a book (in Braille, ofcourse, considering the fact that I am blind.) Sure digital books are easier, but not all of them are accessible to the blind. When I go to college, I think that I will have the hard cover textbooks. The hardcover textbooks can show me graphics and I will be able to interpret the graphics. Whith digital books, it will be difficult to see the graphics. Sure there are captions, but some discriptions may not be good enough to accomidate me.
You are blind! O.O Screen reader I suppose.
Print. Real books don't buffer or crash. ;)
Old can never be changed because time ages all but torn or burn, that is the responsibility of the books' owner. If you love a book so much, I'm sure that taking a little time off to preserve that book (I have no idea how that works XP) would be fine.
I love the feel of holding a book and flicking easily between pages so my vote goes to print. I think some of the new e-readers have improved digital greatly but it still isnt as enjoyable for me to read things digitaly
I love print and all but digital is a lot easier cheaper. So My vote goes even print great and all but digital is easier.
I love being able to hold a book and flip through the pages so my vote goes to print.
^This, though I do use Digital books; I know if I like them enough i will try and get a physical copy for it.
I love the smell of freshly-printed books, and for some reason I become more immersed in the story if I'm holding an actual book than if I'm holding my phone.
But I hate it when you get paper cuts on your fingers :/
Print. I never had many physical books that I could read because my dad always download me ebooks. And besides, digital books could be deleted or erased from your device, while it's easier to keep track of real books.
Imagine this scenario:
You are reading a great book. Smack in the middle of the climax, when BLAM! You run out of batteries.
*plugs into computer, reloads book to last-page, continues reading...*
And if there was a black out or an EMP effect from a nuclear explosion nearby which shuts off all electronic devices for good?
Pull out my flashlight and physical copy/other book to read?
After my batteries dies i would likely light some candles.
Are you guys serious? I don't need light to read a book. If there were a black out, I would just continue reading and still enjoy it.
Hehe - you do have the advantage there ;)
Is he blind? Can't think of another way he'd be able to read in the dark
Yeah, he's mentioned it before in other threads :)
In that case... how does he type with such good grammar/spelling?
And how can he read anything on this site?
It's sooooo easy. I have a laptop. I can type whith good grammar and spelling because I read at the 11th grade reading level. I have read Shakespeare. It is so easy to understand. I liked Henry the seventh (Henry VII.)
Well, yes, but how do you see what you type if you're blind?
For question 1, I'd assume he could type by memorizing the keys/using a grail keyboard
for question 2, it would likely be a screen reader.
What's a screen reader?
(commence google search)
Huh, ok then
For question 1, I do indeed memorize the keyboard. For question 2, you are correct in the fact that I use a screen reader.
For those of you who do not know, a screen reader is a piece of software that allows me access to my schoolwork and the internet. Screen readers have not yet been implemented to recognize graphics unless they are labeled. According to the Americans whith Disabilities Act,
Webmasters are required to make there websites accessible.
So is this site accessible/easy to use for you?
It should be or he wouldn't have stayed.
Maybe he likes the site a lot.
Who doesn't? ;)
Uh oh! There's an extra 1% among us... It can mean only one thing - Pod People!!!
Oh no, we have to gather our armies to defeat this threat. "All of you lazy gorrilla asses, come here!"
I guess it is easy for me to use. Considering what I've accomplished over 2 months, I'd say that the owners did a good job whith the website.
I actually like digital over print mostly due to how much easier it is for me to carry. I tend to read quickly, so taking 3-4 100-500 paged books with me is annoying.
The only problem I had with reading on my Kindel was that it was slow, but that was the first version so I assume the problem has been fixed.
One study says that information on Print retains longer in our minds that the Digital ones.
So, if reading is for academic / study / research purposes, go for Print. If it's for entertainment / pleasure only, go for Digital [it's portable you can read anytime, anywhere].
I prefer Print though. XD
Since I read fast too so digital I like a lot but I like reading paper when I can like if I am at home.
Another argument which depends on age. The people who were born in the late 90's or early 2000's have no conception of the pleasures enjoyed in the past. The smell of a book, the ability to flip the pages, yellowing from the acid as they age, these are all foreign concepts. They literally have no conception of these things and so do not see the value in them. This fact is nothing against them, but there is no point in attempting to point out the benefits of a physical book versus some shit on an iPad.
The fun thing is that even this type of sense may seem like the jabbering of my grandfather, to me, when I was 14 and he told me all sorts of what I considered nonsense about the state of the world, although he was right.
Change is difficult to accept, but when one is not even born before the change happens, one doesn't notice there is a serious problem. Digital shit cannot compare to real literature in any possible sense. The meaning behind the words is of the utmost importance, but the presentation and ability to feel physically connected is what makes it last.
Very young people cannot even grasp that social media, like Facebook, is nothing more than a privacy invasion, because they grew up with cell phones and said media in their hands at all times. Dissertations could easily be written on the subject, and I'm sure they have.
I still like using books.
Besides, you got it all wrong XD. They were talking about if they liked to read things digitally or physically.
Am I not seeing this serious problem you're talking about? I don't like paper. I feel like I'm scratching sandpaper with my fingernails when I touch it. It ruins the presentation for me. I think more about how uncomfortable it is than the stuff I'm actually reading.
Your entire statement is so incredibly biased by your opinion of the subject. I don't like paper, but would I call paper shit and claim that everyone should use ipads or stuff like that to read, just because it suits me better? No.
There is also another angle to the kid born with the new stuff and doesn't appreciate what came before, and that is the old guy that was born before the new stuff and grew up to dislike the new stuff simply because he isn't used to it.
To me, I feel that the content is the most important thing. If I get really absorbed into a book, I won't even notice what medium I am reading the content by. The medium doesn't exist. There's only the content and me.
Paper books are less portable than ebooks, but if your ebook reader's battery runs out, you have to wait until you can charge it before being able to read. I think most ebooks also have the auto bookmark feature, but with physical books you need a bookmark, or to remember the page number. And if you read ebooks on your phone, you may be disturbed by incoming messages, emails or calls. With a traditional book, notifications can't flash across the page and you can read the book in peace.
Of course, paper books are more expensive and that's why I get lots of books online. However, I like collecting the paper versions of my favorite books and series.
I think reading paper books are better for your eyes than reading digital ones. I also find it more comfortable to hold a traditional book in my hands.
I HEAVILY disagree with this statement. I myself was born in the late 90's and I can promise you that I prefer books for all of the reasons that you just stated. There is nothing that beats the feel of a new book, the sound that it makes when you turn the pages, the smell of a bookstore. There's just something about it...
I agree whith you, (can I call you Drak?) I read books in braille. I love getting to hold a book. It is so satisfying. It is really a great experience. It does not matter how old you are. All that matters is that you can at least have the experience of reading a traditional book instead of a digital book.
Of course, it's not my real name anyways, wouldn't take offense to a nickname
Um, Im twelve and I like real books better. Digital books are more convenie if im travelling.
I enjoy getting to hold a real book. It fills me whith happiness. I think that getting to read a traditional book is a great thing. Technology is good. But don't you feel satisfied if you read a traditional book?
Aman, I can read on this site because the owners made it accessible by accident. I can read digital books in braille using technology that is accessible to the blind. Though I prefer traditional
And I know that facebook is a privacy invader. Probably because im a slight geek.
Seriously? I just skimmed this post but then went back and read it. I'm 11 and love the smell of books.
Paper tastes much better when you're starving than digital media.
Well, I suppose... if you are lucky enough to own the flavored kind.
Oh my, such a messy eater!
Ya, his mother must have been so lazy.
Paper always wins except when you are traveling
to be honest, physical copies are better for a number of reasons.
1. If you are really absorbed in your book and it gets really late. Your parents won't tell you to stop because it is a book and not techology as they see it.
2. Have you ever tried reading anything off an Iphone(android smartphones in general), it hurts the eyes, the neck and overall is just a gigantic pain.
3. For the people who will say that you don't read on a smartphone but on a tablet or kindle. Here is my counter argument. You would say that we should pay upwards of 400$ for a table or kindle and then buy the book for 10 to 20$ just to be able to enjoy digitaly i say no to you sir.
But got to admit reading a CYOA in a paperback whould be a pain
I agree with the last statement.
If you choose option 2, go to page 163.
That won't be very convenient.
I personally prefer it by computer. It would probably be easier to write in print but actually going through the story seems to be better by computer.
Yep, considering the fact that you could use ctrl+F to find pages.
I prefer CYOA stories electronically, because there's so much more you can do with them than in print - but for a regular old book, nothing beats the real deal! ^v^
Print. Its soooo much harder to keep focused on digital...