On February 7, 2018 5:18:15 PM EST, Evan Leibovitch via talk <talk@gtalug.org> wrote: >On 1 February 2018 at 14:55, Kevin Cozens via talk <talk@gtalug.org> >wrote: > > >> I doubt it. I prefer the magazine on paper. I spend enough time in >front >> of a computer as it is. The last thing I want to do is have to spend >more >> time in front of one so I can read a magazine. >> > > >If you want a paper version of the digital content, there are these >magical >things called "printers" that allow you to generate such paper versions >quickly and inexpensively, in the privacy of your own home. If you
Inexpensive is a relative term. If all the environmental considerations of shipping and disposing of household plastic cartridges, residual inks, paper and packaging are taken into consideration, then those hidden costs outweigh the lesser cost of purchasing a mass produced periodical. >don't >have your own "printer" you may readily find one at libraries, friends' >homes, UPS stores, or a number of other locations. You could even >selectively produce your copy so that you don't need to carry around >content in which you have no interest. I tend to buy reference books. Fiction, periodicals and broadsheets I tend to read at the library. > >Sheesh. Talk about first-world problems. Well we should do all we can to stop shipping our garbage to the so called third world, even under the guise of recycling. I note China is going to stop taking Western plastics. I guess first world convenience is catching up with their capacity to absorb our castoffs. > >It's the content that matters. Like or complain about that. The >solution >to preferring a paper version of a digital document that you own is >distressingly trivial -- unless you derive joy from sucking up the >resources to truck a physical copy to you from some distant location. Everything which is based on convienience sucks up resources. It is price points and margins which drive industries. This is why carbon credits are a good idea, it exposes those hidden costs. Unfortunately that is also the biggest factor in opposition to those credits, industrial need of keeping the real world costs hidden from consumers. >Eliminating the massive costs of centralized printing and distribution >can >be the difference between life and death for many publications. This is the distemper of our time. The massive cost of printing may be decentralised but is it really diminished? One of the hidden costs of screen reading is the additional artificial light these screens radiate and the effects on eye and even skin health. This sounds kind of nitpicky, I know that, but these are real issues. Should you use a uv cream in order to read a lcd screen which radiates light? One of the reasons I do most of my digital reading on a small hand-held device is that it is almost always in motion when I use it. This causes the eye to constantly refocus, as it is meant to. This serves to reduce eyestrain, just like holding a book or a broadsheet. I think like most things these days, balancing the hidden costs and the choice of convienience, is a double edged sword. > >-- >Evan Leibovitch >Toronto, Canada > >Em: evan at telly dot org >Sk: evanleibovitch >Tw: el56 -- Russell --- Talk Mailing List talk@gtalug.org https://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk
