Not all of the illustrations in the books that I read are necessarily full page, but most of the books that I read usually make at least a modest use of color to convey additional information that would not be anywhere remotely as clear if everything were in shades of grey... hell, even Stroustrup makes use of color to a limited extent, making browsing through the text for particular information that might not happen to be specifically indexed many times easier. Not every page is splashed with color, obviously, but where and when color is used, it is important that the information is being conveyed.

Of course... it's much easier to dismiss a demographic as being unimportant than it is to consider their points as having any merit, so your remark is actually entirely understandable... and probably the viewpoint that ereader manufacturers have as well.

I stand by what I said above, however... if somebody makes a practical and at least reasonably affordable full color ereader with a fast enough screen update time that it is viable to implement an interactive user-interface that is both intuitive and does not have any perceptible delay between action and visual response, I'll be all over it like tide on dirty laundry.

... I made the assumption that it would address how such an explosion happening so close to our own solar system would likely affect this planet.

But.... nothing. Lots there about what to see, but not a speck of text anywhere in the article that addresses what would actually happen for us.

I already have a pretty rough idea of my own on what will happen on Earth anyways... and I suppose I went looking to the article in the hope of seeing either confirmation or denial, but I found neither. If I'm right, however, then talking about what there will be to see when it happens is really kind of pointless.

When they can make a practical (that is, affordable) non-emissive display that has screen update times that are fast enough as to be visually imperceptible, so that it is possible to pan or zoom around a page where you may want to look at small details in an illustration interactively, for example, and one that supports full color, I'll be all over that.

While books can't do the former either, at least I can bring them as close as I want to my face to improve clarity, while just viewing a page at a given zoom level and moving it closer to your face just makes the pixels bigger, and doesn't actually enhance the image in any way.

I remember reading about this back in the early 1990's... from what I recall of the article, it wasn't wholy practical at the time owing to the expense of fabrication compared to silicon with the technologies available, but the article writer did talk about the far faster switching speeds than what silicon can achieve... more than an order of magnitude, iirc.

There's nothing wrong with owning a luxury automobile if that's what you want to do... but don't try to pretend that what is clearly priced at the higher end of the spectrum of mid-range sedans is supposedly going to be good for people who weren't already interested in paying a higher premium for their car in the first place.

I never said I don't understand why people would pay more than $25k for a car... some people want nicer cars, and there's no fault in that. The Tesla 3, however, appears to be physically comparable to the what would otherwise be about a $25k mid-range sedan, however... but yet it is priced well above that, essentially remaining a luxury brand of vehicle.

And again, this is Tesla's so-called "economy" model.... you can still get brand new pretty nice looking sedans for under even $20k.

The CC is one of VW's most expensive sedans. The Passat is considered a midrange sedan and clocks in at only $24k, which is physically about what I would compare the Tesla model 3 to. But hey... don't take my word for it, look at what the Consumer Reports has to say about buying Sedans:

... there are plenty of fine midsized cars priced under $25,000.

That Tesla compares well to cars that sell for about the same price doesn't do Tesla any favors when you can actually still spend a whole lot less on an automobile and get something that is equally sized, looks just as good, and is is just as utilitarian in all other ways except that it runs on gasoline instead.

It doesn't even compare with 25k cars which you can easily buy a midsized sedan for

The argument that all the money you will save on gasoline makes it somehow worthwhile is entirely irrelevant when the car is still priced at over double the price of what are otherwise physically very comparable cars by other manufacturers.

When some manufacturer comes out with an electric vehicle that looks nice (which Tesla is very good at, by the way), and costs roughly the same amount as any otherwise physically comparable car (which Tesla is currently bad at). The model 3, discounting the fact that it is all-electric, is otherwise physically comparable to many mid-range vehicles by manufactures such as Volkswagen, Dodge, and others, that still cost quite a bit less than what the model 3 is even alleged to ultimately go for, to say nothing of how much less than what it will actually go for once its actually out.

And of course, this is Tesla's "economical" model.... where most manufactures have economical models that run far less than even their mid-range vehicles.

The conclusion is irrefutable. Tesla is a luxury brand.

Except the Tesla model 3 is physically comparable to other vehicles in or around the $25k range...

Bottom line, Tesla is still a luxury automobile.

Costing a little more is fine.... and entirely understandable owing to inflation. Costing more than double the price of what was considered a mid-range car that we bought brand new in '09 is not.

Even $35k, which it wouldn't cost, by the way, is about 70% more than what we spent on our current car.... and Volkswagen's midrange sedans go for about $25k CDN. not $35-$40... at those prices with a VW, you are easily looking at their higher end vehicles.

I am expecting the model 3 to check in next year at about $45k CDN.

Make no mistake about it, I'd certainly deeply want one... but at those prices, the gasoline saving are entirely irrellevant when you can't afford the monthly payments on the car in the first place because they are more than what you ordinarily pay plus the cost of gasoline combined.

A fat lot of good all the money it can save on gas in the long run will do if the car is so expensive to begin with that the difference between the monthly payments on it versus a gasoline vehicle is more than double what you'd be ordinarily pay for gas anyways in the interim. Of course you could reduce the monthly payments by stretching out the loan over a longer period, but then you are paying even more money for the car, causing it to take even longer to pay for itself with the gasoline that you aren't buying, and running the risk of the car never being cost effective before its battery dies and needs to be replaced.

The summary was talking about the late 1990's, not the late 1980's.

Novell had been almost entirely supplanted by Windows NT server and other alternatives by the turn of the century, largely owing to the fact that just as the Internet was just starting to become the next really big thing, they were still entirely dependent on IPX/SPX instead of TCP/IP.. By the time they corrected this oversight, they had lost such a large percentage of the market in which they were once dominant that they never recovered. They were about relevant in the late 1990' s as Windows 3.1.