are kindles better than books
are kindles taking over? what do you think? Are books a thing of the past? Well i think so!!!
yes
Side Score: 42
|
 |
no
Side Score: 39
|
|
|
|
|
I prefer ebooks in general, not just Kindles, to printed books. They're lightweight, they don't get torn or dogeared, you can adjust the font and page formatting to be more readable, the bookmark won't slip out, you can even annotate the book if you want to without altering the actual book. And they're better for our rainforests. Environmentalists should stop trying to get everybody to wear leaves and bike to work or whatever, and support something that is a step forward rather than backward: tell people to stop printing books. Side: yes
i think that kindles are better because technology is whats new and that is now in the 21st century... books cut down trees and are bad for the enviorment kindles can hold up to 1500 books and whenever you need a book u can download it within seconds... and i think that they are light weight and you can not only read on them but have games and internet access and that is the new thing go kindles Side: yes
3
points
Kindles are a good source of technology, but so are cellphones. Does your kindle make phone calls because my cellphone can make calls, email, play games and internet access. Therefore, I don't need another gadget just to read. There is a reason why books have stood the test of time. They are hard to replace. As for environmental issues, where is your power source for your kindle? It is a battery, that battery needs to be charged, batteries need AC outlets, outlets means electricity, and electricity requires energy source. Side: No
3
points
i onesly tink dat kindles r betr cuz tink bout it lik dis, u cn by ovr 3500 books dat's prty kewl n i hav a kindle, at 1st i didnt wnt it but once i got it... i luv it. i cnt stp reading now i dontb get y no won wants 1 der soOoOoOoOoO kewl, n i dnt care wut nee1 ls tnks cuz dare AWESOM Side: yes
First off, check this link out: http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/ Second, re-read the link. Third, we probably shouldn't have electronics in school. If we allowed that, most people would just bring their phones and text each other, or their laptops and mess around on the internet or play games. People wouldn't learn anything, and the US would drop even lower in educational rankings of the world. We're already below 30, and that's pretty darn low. Side: No
Okay, that's not even a real argument. And adding letters to the phrase 'boo yeah' doesn't really count as having more than 50 characters. And, the ironic thing is, you probably added three comments to this post so there'd be three more points to the 'Yes it is' side. However, since I have commented on your comments, it evens the scores out. So you should probably stop trying to cheat. Side: No
Paperbook Cons - The obvious cons are: Paper books are bulky and heavy. Carrying more than 2-3 around can become a chore. You need a light source to read them - another thing that you'll probably carry around. If you make notes in them, those notes are there to stay (Yes, even pencil. You can always see the imprints, even if you erase every last shred of graphite). Side: yes
The eBook eBooks offer the following obvious advantages (assuming you have an ebook reader): They're easily readable. Most readers offer zoom functions, letter resizing, and so forth. They're easily portable. You can carry multiple books on one device. They're much more environmentally friendly. You don't have to kill a few trees for each book, and let's not even talk about the ink. Recycling only goes so far. Note-taking is much more powerful, and the notes you write can be found and referenced quickly and easily. And they don't have to be permanent. Lighting conditions essentially become meaningless. Many readers incorporate display lighting allowing you to read whenever and whereever you like. Side: yes
2
points
Yes, they are better than books. I'm actually debating this at school debate club, and finding this was very handy indeed. First of all, kindles can't get torn by mistake, be scribbled on by annoying siblings and not removed, and there are less trees damaged by the enviroment. Also, I've found that the ability to change the font size is very handy for those who are always needing reading glasses, like my gran. She's actually buying her own now that she's always stealing mine! Also, through kindle, you can discover authors and books that you've never heard of before! It's easier to carry books that are normally really thick or only on hardback, and it fits in my school bag a LOT easier! I can bring more books with me on holiday, so now I don't run out of books to read(which used to bug the hell out of me!) and can enjoy the sun whilst reading books whenever I like(like that dreaded journey!). The kindle is a great advantage to any book reader and I totally think it's better than books! Side: yes
The plastic the Kindle is made from certainly does, not to mention the tons of coal used to power them (among other electronics). Until we switch to clean energy (such as Fission, Fusion, solar[1], water[2], geothermal[3], or exercise bikes with generators attached), electronics will still be powered by fossil fuels (that includes you, electric cars!) Also, plastic will sit around in landfills long after books decompose. And I'm guessing lots of paper come from tree farms, not the wild forest. ---- [1] Ugly [2] Destroy rivers and surrounding land (unless you use tidal power) [3] Can only be built in certain locations Side: No
1
point
I'm an avid reader, and always have been, and I see the Kindle as being the technological successor to the 'dead tree' book. There are many benefits to the Kindle as opposed to a dead tree, though obviously arguments in either direction are entirely subjective. Given that I travel frequently for work, I can carry an entire collection (currently around 300) of reading material with me that slips right into my laptop bag. The sheer portability of the kindle compared to a dead tree is a huge selling point in my opinion. If you primarily read at the library, or in your home, this may be a non issue. Also of note is its innate 'spoiler-hiding' ability. While the occasional title can throw you for a loop and do something unexpected, the number of pages remaining can be a huge spoiler. For example: In a fantasy/adventure type novel, the protagonist may be facing off against the villain in a tense, dramatic moment... and yet, you already have an idea of the outcome- if you're halfway through the dead tree, you just know they aren't going to kill either of them off. This is painfully evident as you can't 'unsee' the thick mass of pages on the righthand side of the material. The Kindle, on the other hand, indicates the page number, which isn't a 'spoiler' in this way at a glance- requires a bit of direct, intentional thought to work that out. Then there is the durability of the book itself, at lest in aesthetic terms. It may just be me, but I have a tendency to dog-ear pages, highlight text, make notes in margins, etc. After a while, any dead tree that I have is simply a mess, and much of the charm is lost. On the Kindle, I can add notes, highlights, and bookmarks freely, as well as hide them with no effort. Your library can be readily backed up, so in the event that your kindle breaks, or takes a swim, you can get your entire library loaded onto the replacement. Books go out of print, but you can back up your library in multiple places. I've lost more than one dead tree permanently due to it being in short supply and out of print when disaster struck. No such risk for my ebooks! There is a certain measure of privacy granted by the kindle as well. In the past, I've often resorted to using book covers to mask the material I'm reading, because A) It discourages questions that interrupt my reading time and B) As a male in his 20s, I find myself a fan of a number of works that I would be embarrassed to display publicly. In the event that I AM asked about what I'm reading, and its something embarrassing, its a simple matter to discreetly click over to a less embarrassing book for the duration of the conversation. Dishonest? Maybe, but thats my call to make! Certainly beats, say, hiding a smaller dead tree between the covers of 'War and Peace!' The Kindle is also more economical- in some cases. This is largely due to the massive amount of free content available (almost all of the classics are available for free!). Beyond that, most titles are notably cheaper in ebook form than they are in dead tree form. There are a number of exclusives available for the Kindle. Beyond that, if you have any interest in the ridiculous racket that the publishing industry has become, one can certainly appreciate the throwback that authors receive and the ease of self-publishing that ebooks bring. That last sentence is probably the biggest selling point, to my mind, of the kindle and ereaders in general. They remove a MASSIVE barrier of entry to publishing material, which means all the more material for us readers to peruse. To sum it all up, in my (admittedly subjective) opinion, the Kindle is better than a 'dead tree' book in terms of practicality, enjoyment, and politics. Your mileage may vary! Side: yes
I like the entry barrier for books, because it's a quality guarantee of sorts. The paper book itself is an art form more complicated than a kindle. I'm so used to them that I can look at the shape, text density and feel the weight and know instantly how long it would take me to read. I have always preferred to have hard copies of data- and the kindle just doesn't seem real. Side: no
1
point
I dispute the quality guarantee. In this day and age, it's more about 'will it sell and appeal to the masses' than 'is it good.' Paper books are not an art form when they are mass produced. Some books are still made and bound by hand, but that is a tiny, tiny minority. Side: yes
1
point
|
1
point
No. it is much more fun reading books. flipping through the pages. its also must better to hold a book than a kindle and it is really nice to be able to easily find ur bookmark. and also you have to charge your kindle and with books you can just pick it up and read it. and the book sometimes reads itself which is really annoying to the people who are readind actual books. so uh of course books are better than kindles. Side: No
1
point
1
point
All I can say is that I flat-out dispute the lack of a 'sense of accomplishment' when finishing a book in Kindle format. I also dispute that books 'feel' better. I've got a nice leather case for my kindle and it feels very nice in my hands- and no papercuts, ever! You would know all this if you read a kindle. Side: yes
The "Classic" Paper Book. Paper books offer multiple advantages: They're easily obtainable (Bookstores are everywhere). They're easily portable. They don't normally cause significant eye-strain. They're cheap. Okay, that much was obvious. Specifically, some types of content paper books are better for are: Textbooks (or any books which are generally large-format). Picture / Photo books. Side: No
1
point
The Kindle does all this and better. Ebooks are more easily obtainable- a couple clicks and a couple seconds to download, as opposed to a drive/walk to a bookstore or waiting for shipment. The Kindle is more portable than any individual book I've ever bothered to read, and doesn't lose portability as the number of titles increases. The E-Ink used in the dedicated e-readers is no different on the eyes than reading paper or newsprint. Though I will say that the kindle apps for computers and phones, as well as the kindle fire display are legitimate eyestrainers. The Kindle itself is more expensive than any given book, but ramp it up to a full collection and you're spending less per book with the Kindle. Textbooks, picture books, and photo books are arguably better in an electronic format due to the ability to search and index contents rather than page through. Side: yes
And when your kindle freezes and are forced to buy a new one with shipment you could wait up to a week. the library makes pretty easy to get books and it is free with a library card. the E-ink will you screen if you don't read for a while. And you kindle might need to be charged which could take up to a half hour. Side: no
E-Book Cons - eBooks are useless without a reader. There are a few on the market, such as Amazon's Kindle, Jinke's Hanlin reader series, Sony's eReader series, and a few others. These are mentioned because they incorporate a technology called e-ink, which resembles paper very closely, and eliminates most eye-strain issues. Some types of books especially suited for a reader are: Novels or non-fiction books without many pictures. Web-sites with html links and cross references. The disadvantages of ebooks generally stem from the hardware you're reading them on. If it's a computer, you've got the normal computer problems which detract from your reading pleasure: Eye strain and RSI. Long periods spent in front of a computer are healthy for nobody. Power. Your average laptop has 4-6 hours of battery life. Portability. Why lug a laptop around if you can simply carry a book? The cons of the reader devices are a little more subtle: You still have battery life to worry about. Nasty software bugs in the reader can cause it to freeze up. They're not very robust. If you spill on them, chances are that's the end of your reader. Not to mention scratches, dropping them, and so on. In general, ebooks suffer from other cons as well: They're not readily available, and format wars are making the decision to buy a reader very difficult. Will you go for the Amazon one, and buy books (only) there? Or the Sony? The pricing model hasn't been worked out yet, causing some major discrepancies. Side: No
Books remain stronger than kindle... the actual intelligent can find in physical book not from any virtual one. Somehow,, this is where we start and this is where end. Although we are manufacturing digital items in http://www.solidlineproducts.com/, we make sure that we have books to get ideas of. Side: no
I think books are much better . you can keep books for like ages but there is no gaurantee that kindles will last for long. for instance your kindle stops working and you find out that its irrepairable ? so it'll simply be a waste of money . and its not possible to carry kindles everywhere because they are pretty expensive whereas books are cheaper and can be easily carried with. moreover you get a satisfying feeling when you've got a solid book unlike kindle. so i'll rather prefer book over kindles. Side: no
2
points
0
points
I prefer a real book. It’s easier for me to concentrate, I don’t know why but it is. It’s also nice to know that I’m still not all the way into the new age. I feel like technology is destroying the good old fashion ways. I like the smell of a new book and flipping the pages. Not the best reason but I still think real books are better than Kindles and eBooks. Side: No
I'm going to have to add mine to the 'no' argument. I love books, and I love the Kindle. They both have their advantages. The Kindle (or generic e-reader, if you prefer) is lightweight and very portable. It would be a big advantage to a book-lover who travels a lot. From being one of them, it was difficult to do so with hard-copies. You could read through it, and then be bored for the rest of the trip. I then started to bring four or five books (which got heavy), just to make sure. With the Kindle, you have your whole library with you, or at least your e-library. --- However, there are disadvantages (did I spell that right?) to the Kindle. Now, here I am talking about the Kindle, as I'm not sure if other brands have these problems. It is slow to flip pages, which is irksome if you wish to skip ahead just ten or twenty. Or if you want to re-read a specific part, but didn't highlight it or memorize the location, it's nearly impossible to find again. Pretty much, you can't flip through pages like you can a book. Also, the books on the Kindle are organized via tags, not folders. Although this means that a book can be under 'Fiction' and 'Sci-Fi' and 'Favorites', it means that there are no nested folders. This is fine if the number of books you have is less than 50. More than that, and you have to flip through folders and flip inside the folders to find your book, which is quite annoying. --- So, my conclusion is that, if you travel a lot, than an e-reader is better to have. However, for the rest of us, it's slightly tedious. Hard copies are more permanent (much less likely to break than an electronic device), and easier to search and flip pages. Plus, there's nothing like the feeling of turning that last page in a book, or getting to the good part with only a dozen more pages in your right hand and knowing it's nearing done. So, all in all, in most circumstances, books > e-readers. Side: No
1
point
I dispute the permanence of hard-copies versus ebooks. If something happens to your hard copy, you have to hope that you can get another copy. There are far more books that are out of print than there are in current production. On the other hand, if your ereader breaks, you have your library backed up and replacing the device is all that is required. Losing an ereader is a temporary setback. Losing a hardcopy book may well be permanent. Side: yes
|
