Do you own an encyclopedia set? A scientific one? An history of science in several volumes?
Yep, called it's the internet.
>>8154101
Good one faggot.
>>8154091
Yeah I own World Book 1984. Thy're actually better than the internet, much more well written. Of course the big problem is that the info is way outdated. But some things never change so I still have them. Was considering getting the 2016 set.
>>8154126
Just get an online subscription.
>>8154129
>reading off of a screen
Patricians will always use books. Deal with it.
no. i am living encyclopedia with my 100+ IQ
>>8154091
I value my intelligence much more than thousands and thousands of pages of others' opinions, most of which will never be relevant in my life. Saged.
>>8154161
>i don't read books
>>8154091
No, because I'm not a roaring twenties millionaire.
>>8154091
Investing in a book encyclopedia would be a waste of money because most of it needs to be updated within a few years. Human knowledge is growing exponentially. You'd have to buy a new encoclopedia quickly.
Ask yourself: When you need to look up something, would you rather go through your parents' encyclopedia from the last century or would you rather ask duckduckgo and get the newest information?
>>8154126
>Good one faggot.
>>8154126
>Of course the big problem is that the info is way outdated.
>>8154200
autists wont understand the experience of books is what makes them better. better quality of information, not reading off of a screen, looks nice on your shelf and is generally comfier to read curled up on the sofa. autists wont understand that you dont have to stop using the internet just because you have encyclopaedias.
>>8154223
Dude, get an e-reader
>>8154223
Just print articles, that's what I do.
>>8154227
pale imitation
My dad has a set from the 1960s. It's fun to read. There's a website up which I forget which has one from 1911 which is even funner to read.
Any good mathematical encyclopedia?
>>8154242
>1911
their cancer article was grim
>>8154223
Of course we understand the comfort of reading a paperback novel.
what non-autists don't understand, however, is the eagerness to curl up on a couch and read an [math]encyclopedia[/math].
I saw this encyclopedia once it claimed we detonated nukes in Jupiter and had actual video of it happening. It changed the pattern of Jupiter's stripes and created giant black spots. When I look online for such data it's all gone, missing. Expunged from the digital history books as if it never happened. This is the problem with digital encyclopedias. History can easily be rewritten.
>>8154126
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7070/full/438900a.html
>>8154690
Britannica isn't relevant since the acquisition by the Americans; Wikipedia is controlled by (((them))), not only around controversial articles but also on more trivial matters (their articles about global warming are a joke). Once again, history is rewritten by the winners, so...
>>8154670
>This is the problem with digital encyclopedias. History can easily be rewritten.
Does it not occur to you that crackpots existed before the digital age, and you read a crackpot encyclopedia?
>>8155312
>World Book 1998 Multimedia Encyclopedia
It had video of the detonations taking place. Are you saying they just lied and made all this shit up? The only conclusion I've drawn is SOMEBODY is lying about what happened. It's foolish to assume who it is without more data. Realistically tho, what does an Encyclopedia gain from making shit up?
