Used Kindle vs Trashy Paperback. Reading might be fundamental, but that doesn’t mean we read as often as we should.

Deceased Ex-Football Player's Shady Half Sister Foiled By Microsoft Office Fonts. At a recent Hall of Fame news conference, a woman claiming to be Ex-Cowboys receiver.

There are so few things to enjoy in this life. We can imbibe in booze but only occasionally. In many states, we can’t (legally) indulge in The Devil’s Lettuce or.

• My Kindle is my portable library and encourages me to explore all of my interests, as long as I’ve checked some out before I leave the house.
• MS Paint, the first app you used for editing images, will probably be killed off in future updates of Windows 10, replaced by the new app Paint 3D. Microsoft lists.

Everyone has at least one stack of books they stare at sheepishly, knowing they haven’t been read or cracked one open in months, even years. While you could read that old paperback you’ve been dying to get to, there are so many other distractions to choose from.

Besides, what if you’re just not into opening that romance novel after a 1. What if you want to read something funny? You can always look at toting more than one book with you, or get yourself a cheap Kindle and save yourself the weight (before accessories, of course).

Either way, you’re guaranteed to start reading a little more. The Contenders. Both are decent choices for getting reading done on the cheap. With paperback books, they’re virtually everywhere, cheap enough, and small enough to tote around.

The Kindle, however, has technology on its side, making it easier than ever to read more books at a time. Cheap paperbacks: Paperback books are the tried and true method of reading something anywhere. They’re small and light, making it an easy decision to take one along with you on a trip or walk. Being an actual book, you’re more likely to retain what you read, making it a great choice for literature you want to devour.

Paperbacks are also on the cheap side, often equalling their ebook counterparts, and definitely a bargain compared to hardcovers. Don’t want to purchase any books? Hit the library. I love books. I can’t leave a bookstore without at least one. But I also have a tendency to buy.

Available in options ranging from the $8. Kindle to the $2. Kindle Oasis, you definitely have a few ways to spend your money. What I’m recommending, however, isn’t a Kindle fresh out the box, but a refurbished one, as cheap as you can get one. Combine that with your library’s ebook program as well as ebook sites like Standard Ebooks and you’ve got yourself a library in your pocket for the price of a few hardbacks. The idea is this: if you’re carrying an expensive e- reader with you, you’re more likely to be wary about pulling it out. I’ve treated brand new smartphones like newborn babes while my old models get tossed like rag dolls (with cases).

I’ve owned a brand- new Kindle and found myself behaving in a similar way. I’d only read it at home, never outside. But my refurbished Kindle? I take it with me everywhere, and find myself reaching for it in unlikely situations thanks to its one- handed use. Both Have Books, but Only One Needs Batteries. Your Kindle might store a multitude of books within, but that’s no good when it’s not charged.

There’s one way books always beat electronics: longevity. Your trashy paperback doesn’t need batteries, nor do your books disappear after your renewal date expires. Getting excited to continue a novel only to find your Kindle dead as a doornail is less than appealing, especially when sitting next to someone with a book they grabbed from an airport newsstand. Adjusting to electrified reading meant I had to tote a tiny battery pack and USB cable with me to make sure I wasn’t without power when I had a few minutes of downtime. It’s a great habit to build, but annoying when I forget. I’d rather just read whatever I could at that point.

A Paperback is Just a Book, a Kindle is a Library. Having one book might make you excited to finish it, but having one book also means you might not be in the mood to finish it. That means you’re stuck with unwanted reading material wherever you are, text you’ll have to slog through until you decide you’ve read enough for the day. My Kindle is my portable library and encourages me to explore all of my interests, as long as I’ve checked some out before I leave the house. If I’m not feeling this historical non- fiction book, I can pop over to a high fantasy novel and read about some elves cracking some skulls. That ability to choose will increase your chances of reading something, anything, as long as you’re interested in it.

I’ve used my Kindle to read some classic novels too long and large for me to carry, as well as books with only a few dozen pages. Verdict: Paper is Nice, But I’ll Keep the Kindle. You may disagree and say there’s nothing like grabbing an old softcover and spending the day with it, but I object. Technology affords us many luxuries, one of them being the ability to carry more than one book with me at a time. It works wonders for my short attention span, lets me get more reading done without being paranoid I’ll break or lose my device, and allows me to get some literature in even when I only have one hand free. Sure, I’ve got to make sure it’s charged or bring a battery pack with me, but at least it means I’m reading more.

A Guide to the Worst Seltzer Take Ever Written. There are so few things to enjoy in this life. We can imbibe in booze but only occasionally. In many states, we can’t (legally) indulge in The Devil’s Lettuce or even get health care. That’s why so many of us cherish the wholesome party water known as seltzer. Its playful bubbles are a reminder of how carefree life could be if we all stopped yelling at each other online or tweeting tentacle porn.

Recently, however, The Sun decided to deliver its piping hot take about seltzer which is—we kid you not—“Sparkling water is really, really not good for you.”Everybody’s got A Take these days. Inside each and every one of us is a piping hot Take, waiting to burst out of our innards like a baby xenomorph.

Still, sometimes the Take is Bad, and the feeler of the Take should feel Bad, too—especially when it’s a horribly reported story about something as beloved as seltzer. So, we’re going to help you figure out for yourself when you’ve got a bad take. Also, we’re going to use “seltzer,” “sparkling water” and “club soda” interchangeably, sorry. Let’s just start with the headline. If you ever see a definitive statement in a science story’s headline (or anywhere in the story for that matter) instead of “might” or “could,” you should immediately be a little skeptical. There are few definites in science. It’s an incremental process that involves experiments—you compare some experimental change with the way things normally go, the control.

The results might contain bias based on the design of the experiment and who performed it. Only after repeated, independent experimental results can you say that something is true. And even then, further research might add more complexity or nuance, or even disprove it.

The first few paragraphs are just a grabby lead and summary paragraph. But then, the story cites a source: “Adam Thorne, a dentist in London’s Harley Street.” “Most people have no idea that fizzy water is extremely acidic, it’s p.

H3 on the acidity scale. The bubbles erode your tooth enamel—and over time this causes painful, yellow cracked teeth,” Thorne told the Daily Mail. But you should immediately note that it doesn’t say his qualifications for stating that soda water erodes tooth enamel.

Sure, he’s a dentist. Die Webseite Kann Nicht Angezeigt Werden Windows 7 more. But has he actually studied the effect of seltzer on teeth?

Luckily for you, there’s the Pub. Med, the National Institutes of Health’s database of science studies. Pop into the advanced search and see if there’s an entry with “Thorne A” in the author field and “enamel” or “tooth” in all fields.

Nothing shows up, so you might be skeptical as to just how much Thorne knows about the effects of acid on your teeth. On top of that, the story doesn’t link to any scientific research. That’s another immediate red flag, since a testimony is rarely as solid as actual reported data.

So, do another Pubmed search and you’ll find a number of studies on soft drinks, but few on carbonated water itself. You might poke around to other news sites and see what they say. We found this Atlantic story, and if you don’t like the Atlantic, you can at least just skip to the scientific study. One study shows soda water can be potentially bad for your enamel. But even this is just a lab study, meaning it’s not representative of what really happens in the human body—you aren’t soaking your teeth in seltzer.

But, Adam is pretty sure that seltzer has a p. H of 3, so we’re good, right? It’s extremely acidic, and that’s a bad thing? The Sun’s intrepid reporter clearly didn’t think to explain anything about p.

H or what it means. But just because added flavors and carbonation make the drink slightly more acidic than boring water doesn’t mean seltzer is turning your entire body into an acid soup. This is just a classic scare tactic used in bad reporting—none of the studies say anything about seltzer “rotting your teeth.” Sure, bacteria might cause tooth decay, but none of these studies (nor the new story) mention tooth bacteria. Also, the assertion that seltzer has a p. H of 3 is dubious.

Perrier, for example, has a p. H of 5. 5, and San Pellegrino has a p. H of 5. 3. A toddler with access to Google could regurgitate this information. The Sun completely owns itself so hard in the next part it reads like a Kurt Eichenwald tweet. The writer includes a quote from Edmond R.

Hewlett, a spokesperson for the American Dental Association, who says that “it is the flavoring and not the carbonation that lowers the p. H (increases the acidity) to a level that can potentially erode tooth enamel with frequent consumption.” So, not the carbonation that causes the potential problem. Jaan Tere Naam Bhojpuri Film Mp3 Song Download. Check. In the second half of the story, you’ll notice the writer still doesn’t link to scientific research, but to more news stories, and that they make the assertion that carbonated water will “make you fatter.” Terms like “fatter” should raise a red flag—generally, this kind of language indicates an oversimplification of what the team really did, used to scare readers. In this case, a few Google searches took us to the paper that the fat claim is based on, linked here. You’ll notice that in this study, carbonated water only made rats gain weight, not humans, and plenty of things don’t work when repeated in humans.

On top of that, the story talks about a “hunger hormone” called ghrelin and references a study that tests seltzer’s effects on ghrelin levels in humans. But it only has 2. When reading a suspicious science story, try to see whether word choice is consistent throughout the story, and whether the statements made actually support the claim. In this case, you’ll notice in the last sentence that the author starts referring to a “zero calorie diet drink,” rather than seltzer. The evidence that the news story presents only deals with diet drinks, not the claim in the headline, which refers only to sparkling water. Hating on seltzer is a spicy take for sure, but this take is also a bad one. Live fast, die young, and drink your bubble water with abandon.