On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 21:45:10 +0200, andrel wrote:

> On 26-8-2010 21:37, Darren New wrote:
>> andrel wrote:
>>> the current pdf (from version 7 or 8) allows you to have 3D objects
>>> embedded in it.
>> 
>> I was completely unaware of any such thing.
> 
> you are not the only one. Only some journals allow this kind of
> supplemental data. We would like more of those. It can really be a
> useful addition to a paper.
> Part of the problem is that almost nobody realizes that the possibility
> is there, often without even changing any policy, as the supplemental
> data (and the papers themselves) are in pdf format anyway.
> 
>>> I though the example I had was about 10MB it turns out it is only 2.4
>>> what shall I do with it?
>> 
>> If you want to email it to me, I'll put it on my Kindle and watch it
>> churn. :-)
> 
> done

Tried it here - it opens, but the 3D portion of the screen is just black 
with the built-in viewer.  There's an alternative PDF viewer available 
for the rooted Nook, so I'll try that later on today.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
>> If you want to email it to me, I'll put it on my Kindle and watch it 
>> churn. :-)  
> 
> done

Mine says it can't be opened "due to embedded features not yet supported by 
Kindle."  It doesn't even try, or display the textual part.

It says "(SECURED)" in the title bar of the PC window, tho, so I'm not sure 
if it's just the 3D or the copy protection.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
    Quoth the raven:
        Need S'Mores!

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 25 Aug 2010 16:01:32 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> That's interesting, I had been led to believe that with Kindle, you
>> were more or less at the mercy of Amazon (probably because of the whole
>> 1984 thing).
> 
> Technologically, yes, you are. But it's not something they're going to
> do, or at least so they say.  In the case of 1984, it was because they
> weren't authorized to actually sell that copy. I.e., they were violating
> copyrights by selling you the book that way.

Yeah, but if they'd done that with a paper book, they'd not have come 
into my home, taken it and left me the money.  That's vaguely what they 
did, though, with the eBook.  They needed (IMHO) to make it right in a 
similar fashion rather than taking advantage of the fact that they 
*could* just "unsell" it electronically.  Just because you can do 
something, doesn't mean you should.  It created a lot of uncertainty 
about eBooks.

>> The idea of the retailer being able to 'unsell' something to me really
>> turned me off of buying one of their devices - in fact, if I had won
>> one in a drawing, I'd have sold it because of that...
> 
> Ehn. You have to balance it out. I have lots of worries in my life.
> Amazon pulling a book off my kindle and giving me the money back so I
> can go buy it on paper is low on my list of worries.

It's nonexistent on my list of worries.  Yes, it's a balancing act, but I 
generally don't give money to people who do things I don't agree with, 
even if they correct it.  I also don't give money to Best Buy because 
they treated a return I wanted to make with suspicion and called me a 
thief - just because I wanted a DVD that actually *worked*.  But I've 
been over that story.

> I was reluctant for a long time to buy DRMed books, until I realized
> I'll likely always have the non-DRMed version available if I really want
> it. I can pick which books I'll buy cheaper with less access and which
> books I'll spend more on to be able to keep for 20+ years.

Yes, that's one of the things I've considered as well.  Still, right now, 
most of what I'm reading on my Nook is from Project Gutenberg.

> That book on C# 4.0?  The likelihood of me having to refer to that in 3
> years is really, really low.  :-)
> 
>> Not that I think Bezos didn't ultimately do the right thing, but
>> really, something like that should've never happened in the first
>> place.
> 
> True, and he acknowledged that *and* gave people back the book as well.
> Not sure what more you could ask for.

Not doing it in the first place.  Yes, he can't undo what's been done, 
the best he can do is correct it, and the best we can do is hope that he 
has learned from it.  But it troubles me that businesses make decisions 
that really on the surface should be clearly the wrong way to approach 
things and then deal with it as a PR issue, when clearly it's not a PR 
issue, but a decision-making process issue.

I mean really - who would think that you could take something away from 
someone that they had paid for, annotated, and used and NOT have 
consumers complain about it?  Someone *really* didn't put their thinking 
cap on - or did and said "if we generate some bad publicity, we can 
follow it with a PR campaign that ends us up ahead?" - which I think is 
even more slimy if it was actually *planned* that way.  I'm not a fan of 
manufactured "ooops, we're sorry" situations that are used for the 
purpose of generating "buzz" and "positive PR".

> Amazon's licensing at least isn't obnoxious. You can put it on up to
> five or six devices simultaneously, and if you delete it off your
> kindle, it frees up a license for use somewhere else. (Assuming you
> eventually turn on the radio, of course.) 

That's actually pretty nice, I didn't know that.

> And there's readers for pretty
> much every popular electronic device except the direct competition.

Honestly, I think it would be in the best interests of eReader 
manufacturers not to lock consumers in.  You see this with gaming 
consoles as well - someone wants a particular game, they've got to 
purchase a particular game console if there's an exclusivity clause in 
their contracts.  DRM?  Not a fan of it, but if it's not an encumberance 
to me as a consumer, I'll live with it or I'll find a way to strip it off 
what I've purchased.  But vendor lock-in is something I'm really not a 
fan of - it says "we know we're not as good as the competition, so we'll 
make it impossible for you to leave us".  With eBook readers, once you 
commit to one and start buying from that store, you're pretty much stuck 
for life unless you want to *buy it again*.  That's also a reason why I'm 
not a fan of the music industry - RIAA wants consumers to purchase the 
same content multiple times if they want multiple formats.  I'm not 
paying for the format, I'm paying for the content.  If I want to rip a CD 
to an MP3 to listen on my iPod, that's up to me - I shouldn't be required 
to purchase another copy in MP3 format.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 25 Aug 2010 19:28:19 -0700, Neeum Zawan wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> writes:
> 
>>> Honest question. The things preventing me from buying one are worry
>>> over how long I can keep any books I buy, and because I've shifted to
>>> libraries anyway.
>>
>> Well, that's the reason I didn't get a Kindle, honestly - with the
>> whole fiasco Amazon had over 1984, I prefer something where I can back
>> up my books manually (which I can do with the Nook).
> 
> My concern is about the DRM, as well. Having the file around 30 years
> from now is no use if I can't read it.

It's actually not hard to strip it (so I'm told).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 25 Aug 2010 16:05:19 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Already does.
> 
> Unsurprising! :-)
> 
>> I found it easy to get used to fairly quickly myself.
> 
> Yep, could be. But the touch-screen where you weren't actually touching
> the thing you were interested in threw me.

That took me about a day of normal usage to get past - I had kept trying 
to turn pages using the eInk screen.  When something doesn't work,  you 
learn fast. ;-)

> Or, as my brother said, "I got an iPad, because it has a touch screen." 
> "My
>   Kindle doesn't have a touch-screen, which is why my wife's
>   fingerprints
> are all over the screen."

I tried the iPad - found it too awkward to use for reading books - it's 
physically too heavy for me to use in that way.
 
>> Another *huge*
>> advantage is that many e-books can be viewed in their entirety if you
>> go to a B&N physical store - for up to an hour a day.
> 
> That's a pretty slick marketing move.

Yes, and something that Kindle just can't do since they don't have 
physical stores.  Since most B&N stores have a Starbuck's (or Starbuck's 
lookalike in them), it really ties together nicely.

>> And free wireless at
>> places with AT&T wifi (if you don't have the 3G version, which I don't)
>> is pretty cool.  Like Kindle, with the 3G option, you don't have to pay
>> anything extra for access (the device just costs $50 more, and I have
>> wifi pretty much everywhere I go these days).
> 
> It was helpful on my trip to germany. The hotel wanted like $100/week
> for wifi, but I found out the Kindle will do 3G web browsing for free,
> so for the couple of "arrived safely" sorts of emails I wanted to send,
> it worked out with webmail just fine.  (My phone isn't GSM, ya see.)

The thing I'm wondering is if the 3G option is just a special MicroSD 
card, it might be possible to upgrade at some point.  Either way doesn't 
bother me, if I were going overseas, the 3G option is only supported in 
the US anyways AFAIK (it's tied to AT&T) - but most places I'd travel 
outside the US I'd have company-paid access to the 'net, or would be in 
places with a wifi option.

>> I do wish the USB cable was longer - I'm using an extension with mine.
> 
> I bought a second cable to leave plugged into my computer all the time,
> running under the desk and all that. Happily, it's at least a standard
> USB cable.

The Nook uses a micro USB adapter, but I found the extension works well.  
5' isn't a short cable, it's just not quite long enough for charging 
while reading in bed.

>> also wish the USB port wasn't on the bottom of the device.
> 
> I haven't been bothered by that, but then I don't really read with it
> plugged in.

I generally don't either - I've been working out the battery usage, and 
find that if I leave it in "Airplane mode", the battery usage is much 
more predictable.  When turned off, it's actually just sleeping, so 
there's some battery usage when it's not fully powered down, and they 
don't recommend powering it down.

Today is the end of the second week (and return period) for it, and I'm 
still using it every day, so seems like a good investment. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> They needed (IMHO) to make it right in a 
> similar fashion rather than taking advantage of the fact that they 
> *could* just "unsell" it electronically.

Which they did, yes. I mean, after the mistake, they gave the books back, 
gave you money, and wrote into their contracts they wouldn't do it again. 
That seems pretty upstanding compared to a lot of places.

 >  Just because you can do
> something, doesn't mean you should.  It created a lot of uncertainty 
> about eBooks.

Indeed.

>> True, and he acknowledged that *and* gave people back the book as well.
>> Not sure what more you could ask for.
> 
> Not doing it in the first place.  Yes, he can't undo what's been done, 
> the best he can do is correct it, and the best we can do is hope that he 
> has learned from it.  But it troubles me that businesses make decisions 
> that really on the surface should be clearly the wrong way to approach 
> things and then deal with it as a PR issue, when clearly it's not a PR 
> issue, but a decision-making process issue.

It sounds like the lawyers got into it first, actually.  I wouldn't be 
surprised if there was no policy in place to handle such an event, or if the 
policy hadn't been reviewed by anyone other than the lawyers.

> Honestly, I think it would be in the best interests of eReader 
> manufacturers not to lock consumers in.  You see this with gaming 
> consoles as well - someone wants a particular game, they've got to 
> purchase a particular game console if there's an exclusivity clause in 
> their contracts. 

Kindle is, amusingly, doing just the opposite. You can get like 30% of the 
sales of your book, or you can get 70% the sales of your book if you don't 
rip off Kindle users or lock them into a specific format.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
    Quoth the raven:
        Need S'Mores!

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> That took me about a day of normal usage to get past - I had kept trying 
> to turn pages using the eInk screen.  When something doesn't work,  you 
> learn fast. ;-)

Yeah. And the delays in the UI are at least consistent, so they're easy to 
get used to.

> I tried the iPad - found it too awkward to use for reading books - it's 
> physically too heavy for me to use in that way.

I just played with it for 10 minutes in an Apple store, noticing how nice 
the display was and all.

> The thing I'm wondering is if the 3G option is just a special MicroSD 
> card, it might be possible to upgrade at some point.  

I guess if you want to crack the case open or something... :-)

> bother me, if I were going overseas, the 3G option is only supported in 
> the US anyways AFAIK (it's tied to AT&T) 

The Kindle worked fine for me in Germany. Amazon charged a nominal fee for 
using it for magazines, but no additional for books or web browsing.

> The Nook uses a micro USB adapter, but I found the extension works well.  
> 5' isn't a short cable, it's just not quite long enough for charging 
> while reading in bed.

Yeah. I don't know offhand how long the kindle one is, but the power adaptor 
has the female host connector onit, so you could put as long a cable on it 
as you wanted.

> I generally don't either - I've been working out the battery usage, and 
> find that if I leave it in "Airplane mode", the battery usage is much 
> more predictable.  When turned off, it's actually just sleeping, so 
> there's some battery usage when it's not fully powered down, and they 
> don't recommend powering it down.

Yeah. I'm leaving mine on now just to see. The wireless definitely drains 
the battery faster.  The kindle has "sleep" mode and "off" mode, and it 
still runs the wireless (and probably other background tasks, like the 
search index builder and such) in sleep mode, but not in off mode.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
    Quoth the raven:
        Need S'Mores!

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> writes:

> Neeum Zawan wrote:
>> My concern is about the DRM, as well. Having the file around 30 years
>> from now is no use if I can't read it.
>
> That was what stopped me from getting a kindle or whatever when they
> first came out, yes. But if I want the book again 10 years from now,
> I'll just buy it again.

If it's available. 

When I last moved, I was planning to get rid of a number of fiction
books by well known authors. On a whim, I did a search, and found that
quite a few of those were now out of print. Lots and lots of used
copies, but it made me uneasy.

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> writes:

> Yeah, but if they'd done that with a paper book, they'd not have come 
> into my home, taken it and left me the money.  That's vaguely what they 
> did, though, with the eBook.  They needed (IMHO) to make it right in a 
> similar fashion rather than taking advantage of the fact that they 
> *could* just "unsell" it electronically.  Just because you can do 
> something, doesn't mean you should.  It created a lot of uncertainty 
> about eBooks.

To be honest, I find the analogy with physical books somewhat
flawed. Electronic media /is/ different, and the notion of rights
differs as well. In the long run, I'm sure people's views will change
about such things, and it won't be perceived as a violation of rights.

I don't like it either, which is why I still prefer a physical copy
(mine or the library's). However, I can see a middle ground where for
certain category of items an ebook reader may be preferred.

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 13:06:13 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> andrel wrote:
>>> If you want to email it to me, I'll put it on my Kindle and watch it
>>> churn. :-)
>> 
>> done
> 
> Mine says it can't be opened "due to embedded features not yet supported
> by Kindle."  It doesn't even try, or display the textual part.
> 
> It says "(SECURED)" in the title bar of the PC window, tho, so I'm not
> sure if it's just the 3D or the copy protection.

That's possible as well, I've had trouble with content restrictions in 
PDF on the Nook.  When I get some time, I want to try enabling a few 
different options and see what the results are.

Jim

Post a reply to this message