Do people really want to read off something like this?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Rich, Nov 9, 2009.

  1. Rich

    Rich Guest

    LCD's are dinosaurs. They've been around for over 30 years. Isn't it
    time they started working on a better technology (flexible, portable,
    less fragile?) to promote the replacement of books with? For God's
    sakes, computer screens aren't even vertical, they're still mostly
    horizontally oriented and books (in 99% of the cases) are not.

    http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/11/09/apple.tablet.jobs/index.html
    Rich, Nov 9, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Rich

    U*U Guest

    Books are even old dinosaurs, who say's they are right. Afterall they've
    been around for 2,000 years.


    "Rich" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > LCD's are dinosaurs. They've been around for over 30 years. Isn't it
    > time they started working on a better technology (flexible, portable,
    > less fragile?) to promote the replacement of books with? For God's
    > sakes, computer screens aren't even vertical, they're still mostly
    > horizontally oriented and books (in 99% of the cases) are not.
    >
    > http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/11/09/apple.tablet.jobs/index.html
    U*U, Nov 9, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Rich

    Glen Guest

    Are they made of plastic?
    ..
    --------------------------
    The Internet will become the
    Sacred Sanctuary for Nutters and Idiots.
    (Michel Nostradamus, December 14, 1503, July 2, 1566).
    --------------------------
    Glen, Nov 9, 2009
    #3
  4. Rich

    Rich Guest

    Glen wrote:
    > Are they made of plastic?
    > .


    Doesn't matter. The first iteration of a reader, the Kindle, is
    nothing but an undersized, monochromatic, HUGELY overpriced piece of
    CRAP. To read pocket books, it probably is ok. But then you don't
    have to recharge a book. To read anything else, it is a JOKE. Has
    anyone ever used a small device like an iPod or iPhone or even a
    netbook to read a .pdf, the most commonly used semi-secure document
    file? It is a NIGHTMARE. Most people already wear glasses before
    they are 40, do we want everyone having to do this by age 15 because
    of the strain of using these toys?
    Rich, Nov 10, 2009
    #4
  5. Rich <> wrote:
    >LCD's are dinosaurs. They've been around for over 30 years. Isn't it
    >time they started working on a better technology (flexible, portable,
    >less fragile?) to promote the replacement of books with? For God's
    >sakes, computer screens aren't even vertical, they're still mostly
    >horizontally oriented and books (in 99% of the cases) are not.


    ????
    Almost all computer screen I've seen in the past 30 years are vertical
    or near vertical (often at a 10-20 degree angle). Horizontal screens are
    common only in tablet PCs and in special appliations, e.g. a monitor
    built into a table.
    And that's quite logical if you think about it. After all you have to
    bend over to see a horizontal screen which in general is much less
    ergonomic than looking straight ahead at a vertical or almost vertical
    screen.
    Not to mention that I certainly don't want a horizontal screen take up
    valueable space on my desk.

    jue
    Jürgen Exner, Nov 10, 2009
    #5
  6. Rich

    Nervous Nick Guest

    On Nov 9, 6:12 pm, Rich <> wrote:
    > Glen wrote:
    > > Are they made of plastic?
    > > .

    >
    > Doesn't matter.  The first iteration of a reader, the Kindle, is
    > nothing but an undersized, monochromatic, HUGELY overpriced piece of
    > CRAP.  To read pocket books, it probably is ok.   But then you don't
    > have to recharge a book.  


    I like that phrase "you don't have to recharge a book."

    To read anything else, it is a JOKE.  Has
    > anyone ever used a small device like an iPod or iPhone or even a
    > netbook to read a .pdf, the most commonly used semi-secure document
    > file?  It is a NIGHTMARE.


    It's only a nightmare for someone who doesn't have really good close
    vision AND who doesn't have a corrective aid. 

    Most people already wear glasses before
    > they are 40, do we want everyone having to do this by age 15 because
    > of the strain of using these toys?


    Trying to read small print (this eye "strain" that you mention) does
    NOT have a long-term effect on visual acuity. Do yourself a favor and
    look up "presbyopia". Reading in dim light, trying to look at really
    small things--these have been pretty much proven to have little or no
    effect on ones vision in the long run.

    Likewise, relying on reading glasses or the like does not make you
    more dependent on them. As you get old, your vision deteriorates. It
    has to do with the fact that the lens of your eye continually grows,
    throughout your life--unlike any other organ--and as it grows it adds
    layers of cells that interfere with light transmission. Look up Jer
    Kuszak, et al. for research on this.
    Nervous Nick, Nov 10, 2009
    #6
  7. Rich

    Nervous Nick Guest

    On Nov 9, 6:23 pm, Jürgen Exner <> wrote:
    > Rich <> wrote:
    > >LCD's are dinosaurs.  They've been around for over 30 years.  Isn't it
    > >time they started working on a better technology (flexible, portable,
    > >less fragile?) to promote the replacement of books with?  For God's
    > >sakes, computer screens aren't even vertical, they're still mostly
    > >horizontally oriented and books (in 99% of the cases) are not.

    >
    > ????
    > Almost all computer screen I've seen in the past 30 years are vertical
    > or near vertical (often at a 10-20 degree angle). Horizontal screens are
    > common only in tablet PCs and in special appliations, e.g. a monitor
    > built into a table.
    > And that's quite logical if you think about it. After all you have to
    > bend over to see a horizontal screen which in general is much less
    > ergonomic than looking straight ahead at a vertical or almost vertical
    > screen.


    You stole the reply that I was too embarrassed to post.

    Nice one.

    --
    YOP...
    Nervous Nick, Nov 10, 2009
    #7
  8. Rich

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Rich <> wrote:
    >LCD's are dinosaurs. They've been around for over 30 years. Isn't it
    >time they started working on a better technology (flexible, portable,
    >less fragile?) to promote the replacement of books with? For God's
    >sakes, computer screens aren't even vertical, they're still mostly
    >horizontally oriented and books (in 99% of the cases) are not.
    >
    >http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/11/09/apple.tablet.jobs/index.html


    Rich likes to insist that everybody (but him, of course) waste all
    their money on buying the most expensive, most overbuilt products
    available.

    He is an idiot.

    --
    Ray Fischer
    Ray Fischer, Nov 10, 2009
    #8
  9. Rich

    Bob Larter Guest

    Rich wrote:
    > LCD's are dinosaurs. They've been around for over 30 years. Isn't it
    > time they started working on a better technology (flexible, portable,
    > less fragile?) to promote the replacement of books with? For God's
    > sakes, computer screens aren't even vertical, they're still mostly
    > horizontally oriented and books (in 99% of the cases) are not.


    I take it that you've never heard of E-Ink, flexible OLED panels, or any
    of the other display technologies that are being developed?

    Idiot.


    --
    W
    . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
    \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
    ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
    Bob Larter, Nov 10, 2009
    #9
  10. OT -- Re: Do people really want to read off something like this?

    On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 15:50:19 -0000, "Dink" <> wrote:

    >
    >Then there is the Kindle. I lost interest in that when I heard they could
    >pull books that you had bought, as they did with Orwells 1984. If you buy
    >an e-book, you should have control of it. You should be able to save them
    >on your hard drive indefinitely and be able to read them on all your
    >different devices.


    That's why most people eventually get tired of that corporate "lets change
    the rules always in our favor" bullshit and they go to the
    alt.binaries.e-book.* hierarchy. They're tired of allowing a handful of
    greedy control-freak CEOs deciding for everyone else what can or cannot be
    read. Those groups started over a decade ago when publishing corporations
    wanted to even shut down public libraries to have control over who gets to
    read which books that are published. A nice response to the prevailing
    "Fahrenheit 451" corporate-rule mentality that everyone is insidiously
    allowing to take away their access to knowledge and their world from them.

    "Authority isn't something that someone else has. It's something that
    you've freely, foolishly, and irresponsibly given away -- all by your
    little self." ~ caMel ~

    Fitting that they would pull that particular publication from Orwell. I
    guess they didn't want people reading about what corporations are doing,
    while doing exactly that. We can't have smart independent-thinking people
    you know. Then some power-hungry CEO might not be able to manipulate you
    into being dependent on them and control you all your life for all your
    needs. They'd love nothing better than to control all the available
    knowledge of humanity, even burning the books at the Library of Alexandria
    again if they could, turning you back into their ignorant kowtowing slaves
    of the Dark-Ages all over again.

    The alt.binaries.e-book.technical group gets hundreds of amazing
    publications daily. A boon to any college students, or anyone, trying to
    scrape by just to get an education these days. An education that isn't
    controlled by what the CEO sponsored instructors demand you read according
    to their available corporate grants. It's not just the books they want
    control over, they even control what your instructors can teach. If it
    won't be in their favor so they can employ you as an indentured servant
    later then it won't even be allowed to be taught. "Sorry, we'll have to
    pull your grants if you teach that."

    You can turn a small ancient laptop or newer netbook into a library
    containing thousands and thousands of e-books. Even a 1980's 8086 CPU B&W
    laptop with a 160 meg HDD can contain hundreds of e-books read through
    Windows 3.1. You don't need CPU speed for e-book reading. I keep one like
    that next to the bed for reading at night because it's so handy. Plus the
    nice act of re-purposing it into something useful that most people would
    otherwise just discard and add to a landfill. Oops, I'm not playing by
    their rules. I'm supposed to buy a new kindle so they can control what I am
    told to want to read.
    Anti-control-freak, Nov 10, 2009
    #10
  11. Rich

    Dave Cohen Guest

    Nervous Nick wrote:
    > On Nov 9, 6:23 pm, Jürgen Exner <> wrote:
    >> Rich <> wrote:
    >>> LCD's are dinosaurs. They've been around for over 30 years. Isn't it
    >>> time they started working on a better technology (flexible, portable,
    >>> less fragile?) to promote the replacement of books with? For God's
    >>> sakes, computer screens aren't even vertical, they're still mostly
    >>> horizontally oriented and books (in 99% of the cases) are not.

    >> ????
    >> Almost all computer screen I've seen in the past 30 years are vertical
    >> or near vertical (often at a 10-20 degree angle). Horizontal screens are
    >> common only in tablet PCs and in special appliations, e.g. a monitor
    >> built into a table.
    >> And that's quite logical if you think about it. After all you have to
    >> bend over to see a horizontal screen which in general is much less
    >> ergonomic than looking straight ahead at a vertical or almost vertical
    >> screen.

    >
    > You stole the reply that I was too embarrassed to post.
    >
    > Nice one.
    >
    > --
    > YOP...
    >

    In fairness to Rich (and in general I'm not it favor of being fair to
    Rich), I assumed he meant 'portrait' vs 'landscape' orientation, but I
    could be wrong and who cares.
    Barnes and Noble have just come out with what looks like to be an
    improvement on both the Kindle or the Sony model and I believe it will
    sell for around $200. Although I couldn't justify one for myself, these
    things could be great for certain users, particularly college students.
    Dave Cohen, Nov 14, 2009
    #11
  12. Rich

    J. Clarke Guest

    Dave Cohen wrote:
    > Nervous Nick wrote:
    >> On Nov 9, 6:23 pm, Jürgen Exner <> wrote:
    >>> Rich <> wrote:
    >>>> LCD's are dinosaurs. They've been around for over 30 years.
    >>>> Isn't it time they started working on a better technology
    >>>> (flexible, portable, less fragile?) to promote the replacement of
    >>>> books with? For God's sakes, computer screens aren't even
    >>>> vertical, they're still mostly horizontally oriented and books (in
    >>>> 99% of the cases) are not.
    >>> ????
    >>> Almost all computer screen I've seen in the past 30 years are
    >>> vertical or near vertical (often at a 10-20 degree angle).
    >>> Horizontal screens are common only in tablet PCs and in special
    >>> appliations, e.g. a monitor built into a table.
    >>> And that's quite logical if you think about it. After all you have
    >>> to bend over to see a horizontal screen which in general is much
    >>> less ergonomic than looking straight ahead at a vertical or almost
    >>> vertical screen.

    >>
    >> You stole the reply that I was too embarrassed to post.
    >>
    >> Nice one.
    >>
    >> --
    >> YOP...
    >>

    > In fairness to Rich (and in general I'm not it favor of being fair to
    > Rich), I assumed he meant 'portrait' vs 'landscape' orientation, but I
    > could be wrong and who cares.
    > Barnes and Noble have just come out with what looks like to be an
    > improvement on both the Kindle or the Sony model and I believe it will
    > sell for around $200. Although I couldn't justify one for myself,
    > these things could be great for certain users, particularly college
    > students.


    Barnes and Noble wants 260.

    Personally for a student I can't see where it would be all that
    beneficial--no color (the Nook has a color screen but it's not the one you
    read books on--that's the same 16 gray scale as the Kindle), which makes
    color-coded highlighting not work, for openers. Also there's a shortage of
    textbooks for the things.
    J. Clarke, Nov 14, 2009
    #12
  13. Dave Cohen <> wrote:

    > In fairness to Rich (and in general I'm not it favor of being fair to
    > Rich), I assumed he meant 'portrait' vs 'landscape' orientation, but I
    > could be wrong


    In that case I think he has a point. Personally I think the fact that
    manufacturers have moved over to exclusivly producing widescreen monitors
    is stupid, since what we tend to need is more height to fit in the plethora
    of toolbars, status bars, etc across the top/bottom of every program
    window, and to see our vertical format pictures better. Widescreen is ok
    for movies and that's about it. With my present 22" 4:3 monitor I have
    1600x1200 pixels, if I bought one of the same size now it would be 1680 x
    1050 pixels which loses me 150 pixels in height for the dubious benefit of
    80 extra on the width. So vertical pictures will show even smaller than
    before. What I'd rather have is a square monitor 1600x1600, this would take
    up no more desk space, since extra height is free as far as space use is
    concerned, yet it would show all pictures equally sized.

    For document viewing too, vertical format is better because you can see
    more of the document in a usable way. More width does not help beyond a
    certain point because line length becomes excessive so it's harder to read
    (which is why newspapers and magazines are divided into columns because the
    pages are too wide for comfortable reading otherwise). Already I typically
    have browsers and word processor windows at only half screen width, whilst
    I do use the full screen height, so a tall narrow monitor would make sense
    unless I want two windows open at once.

    Of course, some monitors can be rotated for use vertically, but here again
    widescreen isn't ideal because it gives you a rather narrow screen, also
    the viewing angle of LCDs is designed with horizontal use in mind so
    vertical use isn't always satisfactory in this respect.
    Gordon Freeman, Nov 14, 2009
    #13
  14. Rich

    nospam Guest

    In article <Xns9CC3D000C4F5FC9A7@127.0.0.1>, Gordon Freeman
    <> wrote:

    > In that case I think he has a point. Personally I think the fact that
    > manufacturers have moved over to exclusivly producing widescreen monitors
    > is stupid, since what we tend to need is more height to fit in the plethora
    > of toolbars, status bars, etc across the top/bottom of every program
    > window, and to see our vertical format pictures better. Widescreen is ok
    > for movies and that's about it. With my present 22" 4:3 monitor I have
    > 1600x1200 pixels, if I bought one of the same size now it would be 1680 x
    > 1050 pixels which loses me 150 pixels in height for the dubious benefit of
    > 80 extra on the width. So vertical pictures will show even smaller than
    > before. What I'd rather have is a square monitor 1600x1600, this would take
    > up no more desk space, since extra height is free as far as space use is
    > concerned, yet it would show all pictures equally sized.


    buy a display with 1920 x 1200 pixels and you'll have the same height
    as you do now with additional space for other stuff on the side. or go
    full hog and get a 2560 x 1600 display or rotate what you have now.

    > For document viewing too, vertical format is better because you can see
    > more of the document in a usable way. More width does not help beyond a
    > certain point because line length becomes excessive so it's harder to read
    > (which is why newspapers and magazines are divided into columns because the
    > pages are too wide for comfortable reading otherwise). Already I typically
    > have browsers and word processor windows at only half screen width, whilst
    > I do use the full screen height, so a tall narrow monitor would make sense
    > unless I want two windows open at once.


    more width does not mean that the text will reflow to fit the width,
    and you can still have narrow columns, just as before. however, it does
    mean you can view two or more pages at once. why be stuck with just one
    page at a time?
    nospam, Nov 14, 2009
    #14
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. kemp
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    689
    Frisbee®
    Oct 13, 2006
  2. Joseph Miller
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    270
    David J Taylor
    Jan 22, 2005
  3. simon

    upgrade - want something like a casio qv-2900

    simon, Jul 16, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    267
    David J Taylor
    Jul 17, 2005
  4. larya
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    495
    thanatoid
    Sep 11, 2006
  5. philo
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    813
    philo
    Dec 29, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page