Quote:
Originally Posted by DiapDealer
And why on earth is it "Kindles" vs paper?
|
In my experience, it seems like the common person uses "Kindle" as a term for all things ebook. Sort of like how many people say "iPod" instead of "MP3 Player".
Heh, if I am talking to someone and when they ask me what I do, if I say "I make ebooks", they have a blank look. But if I say "I make books so they can be read on a Kindle", they understand what I mean.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthem
Well, to be fair, if this study came out saying that e-readers performed dramatically better than paper readers... I find it hard to believe that a few of us here wouldn't feel a bit fuzzy inside. The vitriol and the gloating is the problem.
|
I always wonder... do these people read on this thing called "The Internet"? I read massive articles online all the time, I read technical papers, I read massive threads/discussions, and I have no problems absorbing the information.
I haven't touched a physical book in years, and I would take digital over physical any day of the week, if not for all of the indirect benefits as well (searchability, copy/pastability). EVEN IF I didn't absorb the information as well the first time, I can easily search and find the exact section I am looking for, and read it again.
I wonder if these same sorts of people would create studies when calculators were first getting introduced and becoming more popular. Those dang kids aren't learning Maths the old-fashioned hard way, and they are losing the physicality of SLIDE RULES. Those old timers don't know how to use these newfangled calculators, and they can calculate using a slide rule much faster! And look, my study PROVES IT!
Quote:
Originally Posted by HomeInMyShoes
I'm certainly not absorbing as much ink through my fingers when I read the paper.
|
