On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 3:25 PM, Ethan Grammatikidis <eeke...@fastmail.fm>wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Jun 2011 12:45:10 +0100 > Nick <suckless-...@njw.me.uk> wrote: > > > On Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 12:39:53PM +0100, Guilherme Lino wrote: > > > never tried it, but i would like to. And i really support the idea > because > > > there more trees falling in a day than growing in a year.. > > > > I'm pretty sure if you make a case for ebook readers on > > environmental grounds you will fail. They use a lot of > > energy and resources (human and material) to produce. > > I wonder if it would stack up any differently if ebook readers were built > to last (and their owners bought them with that in mind). I'm not sure.. I > think even the cheapest books will outlast the best batteries... I dunno. > All I know for sure is I have some very cheap paperbacks which are at least > 20 years old, and my ~5 year old Zaurus is also fine, apart from the iffy > charging cable. I've read loads of ebooks on that Zaurus, all plain-text, > fmt(1) used to fit them to 63 columns, a fixed-pitch bitmap font called neon > of all things, and at 230dpi it didn't even need anti-aliasing. Mostly I > read them at night, but the screen was fine anywhere indoors. > > What I'll never get about eBooks is that they can store ~3000 books and surely more in the future. 3000 books / (1 book/week) = 57 years. Most of us will already be dead by then... or the eReader itself will be...
