Quote:
Originally Posted by barryem
For everything except reading I found the HP LX series a lot more useful. I could code subroutines on it while at lunch and move them over to DOS on a PC when I got back to work. But it wasn't great for reading.
|
Agreed. I had an application that flipped the text 90 degrees so that you could read it in portrait mode, but the clamshell design made it awkward to hold in one hand. However, the fatal flaw with the LX (for reading) was lack of screen lighting. If HP had added that feature, I might never have been tempted by the Palm.
Now, in an effort to steer this thread back on course...
If someone asks me if I've "read" a book, and I've listened to the audiobook version, I will answer "yes". The method of comprehension makes no difference, as long as the words are the same. If I saw a movie based on the book, I would answer "no" because the words are not the same as the book or audiobook.
The argument that listening to audiobooks somehow makes one less literate is pure and unsubstantiated hogwash. In fact, the opposite case can be made. In order to correctly distinguish homonyms audibly, one must be acutely aware of the context in which these words are spoken. Not so with reading visually - simple spelling will tell you which version of the homonym is being used - no context necessary. Literacy is a prerequisite for both forms, but a more developed literacy is required to accurately comprehend audibly than it is to comprehend visually.
Consider this: Aldous Huxley, Jack Vance, and John Milton (among others) were blind. None could read or write in the conventional sense. John Milton dictated his magnum opus, Paradise Lost, audibly to his companions. I don't consider any of these authors to be "less literate", do you?