Bit disappointed with TDPL build quality

[strtr]

== Quote from Jonathan M Davis (jmdavisprog at gmail.com)'s article
> On Thursday, July 01, 2010 14:22:30 strtr wrote:
> > I just got my (44E) copy of the TDPL and I love the stuff I've read so far.
> >
> > But, the book as an object kind of disappoints me..
> > I know it isn't a hard-cover, but still:
> >
> > I don't own any book with this kind of translucent pages. It makes all the
> > pages look smudgy and you can actually read the bibliography through page
> > 431. Also, maybe I don't own any books which use the same cutting process,
> > but it looks really sloppy cut.
> >
> > Maybe it's just my book, but just thought I should mention this.
> In any case, the only problem that I've had with the quality of the book's
> material is that I've been carrying it around so much that it's starting to get
> a bit worn on the edges. And given that it's paperback, that's likely pretty
> much a given unless you go out of your way to make sure that it's treated really
> carefully, or you just leave it on the shelf and don't read it.
First thing I did was wrap it in sturdy paper :)
(This does lower the real life spamming value ;)

> The paper is a bit translucent, but it doesn't really affect the readability IMO,
> and the paper does seem to be of good quality. I'm sure that you could find other
> books with this sort of paper - especially if you look at books from the same
> publisher. Overall, I really like the quality of the book. About the only thing
> that I could have asked for would be a hardcover, but that's not exactly the
> norm for programming books.
There maybe lies the crux as this is my first programming book and the other book
I'm reading has just that much higher quality paper(also thinner btw).
And the cut  I can't seem to stop whining about the cut :D

> - Jonathan M Davis
> P.S. @spam.com? I would have thought that an address like that would be taboo.
> What's the idea, that there's no way a spammer would label their e-mail adress
> as spam?
I made it more clear.