Originally Posted by Ele
You're still talking about books. We're not talking about books (I think you know that, but you're just fucking with me).
I'm not sure if you're fucking with me, but books, magazines, and newspapers are all print media and all use the same technology...
You seem really hung up on it so maybe I should say "print media" instead of generically referring to books, will that make you feel better?
Also FYI an ereader is just a device mate, you can use your ereader to visit news websites....................... Not sure why anyone would think otherwise tbh
Originally Posted by Kyure
Uh... you are joking me right? Displays have improved DRAMATICALLY over the last three decades, more so than ever before, so I don't know what you are talking about there specifically.
As for 'books' Ele, I think that just comes with the title of the discussion, and I think it is an important topic to bring up.
In the last 3 decades maybe, but compare a monitor made in 2000 and one made this year and what you will see is that the modern one weighs less and uses less power, and is inferior in every other way. To me this is not really improvement.
Speaking generally display technology 10 or 20 years ago is superior to modern display technology. This isn't so much because modern companies are stupid but they pursued LCD technology which is vastly inferior to CRT. Because of that they did set themselves back 20 years and to their credit have clawed their way forward to such an extent that within the next 5 years LCD might be superior to CRT.
<Faint> the rules have been stated quite clearly 3 times now from high staff
Originally Posted by Ele
It's no fun arguing with a troll. I can't be sucked into your vortex of nonsense.
You really didn't know that there's no difference between the technology to print books and the technology to print newspapers or magazines huh?
Google "printing press" buddy.
<Faint> the rules have been stated quite clearly 3 times now from high staff