5 ms·
You make a good point. It was mistaken to say "get rid of the dead trees", what I meant was "get rid of the idea that the main focus of your establishment shou
by blhack 16y ago
You make a good point. It was mistaken to say "get rid of the dead trees", what I meant was "get rid of the idea that the main focus of your establishment should be dead trees."
- Herring 16y ago>mistaken Eh. Maybe books are not quite dead yet, but they do have a terminal disease. We all can see it, I don't know why we tiptoe around it.
- easp 16y agoBooks still have many things going for them. Once they are produced, the only infrastructure they require is literacy and something to keep them dry. Once you have a book, you can do almost anything you want with it, including give it or sell it to someone else, who will have the same rights you had. Copyright does apply to books, of course, but with books, the concept of fair use is well ensconced, and not encumbered by EULAs and "click-wrap" terms of use. So yes, books may well be terminal, but if they die, we risk loosing something more than just a stack of dead tree we can hold in our hands.
- Herring 16y agoI can't see that you disagreed with me, & I don't disagree with you either. Something's always lost in these 'revolutions', but we always gain more than we lose. That's why we're switching mediums in the first place.