 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 18/01/2011 09:09 AM, andrel wrote:
> why would the publishing bussiness act different than the music bussiness?
I get the impression that the only *real* advantage of HD is that you
can charge people all over again for the same content...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 18-1-2011 10:16, Invisible wrote:
> On 17/01/2011 05:50 PM, Darren New wrote:
>> scott wrote:
>>> In general more power means you have more possibilities to do stuff to
>>> increase the quality.
>>
>> Or, more bitrate means more switching means more power. Running a DAC at
>> 22KHz is going to take lots more power than running it at 8KHz.
>
> For decent speech transmission, you apparently need a spectrum that goes
> up to about 4 KHz. That means at least 8,000 samples per second.
>
> A CD-quality digital signal is 44,100 samples per second. That's only
> about 5x higher. Are you seriously telling me it takes 5x the power to
> do that?
It depends a bit on the type of DAC. In general power consumption in
CMOS is almost linear with clock frequency. It does take almost no
energy to keep a switch in one position, only to flip it to the other
state. For more than 8 bits resolution often low-pass filtering of
oversampled data is used, which increases frequency and thus the power
consumption.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 18/01/2011 9:14 AM, Invisible wrote:
>>> dictionary is handy - just double tap on a word and it pulls it up.
>>
>> I find myself reading comments in net news or blogs, and missing the
>> ability to just point at a questionable word and pull up the dictionary.
>
> Surely the vast, vast majority of words you'd actually want to look up
> aren't even in the dictionary?
>
> Obviously I can't find an example now that I want one, but Thunderbird's
> dictionary is missing huge numbers of really quite common words - and it
> isn't even a real "dictionary", it's just a word list. Similarly, when I
> was at school I tried to look up "indefatigable" in the school's (paper)
> dictionary, and it didn't exist. What on Earth makes you think that an
> e-reader would have a more complete dictionary?
Because it has!
The Sony has both the Oxford Dictionary of English and the New Oxford
American Dictionary.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 18-1-2011 10:24, Invisible wrote:
> On 18/01/2011 09:09 AM, andrel wrote:
>
>> why would the publishing bussiness act different than the music
>> bussiness?
>
> I get the impression that the only *real* advantage of HD
advantage to who? (or is that whom, one of the finer details that is
lost on me).
> is that you
> can charge people all over again for the same content...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 18-1-2011 10:22, Invisible wrote:
>>> Besides, who wants a system that can delete the books you've paid for at
>>> any time, for no defined reason?
>>
>> Get an ereader that is not a Kindle
>
> Or perhaps just not get an e-reader at all? It's not like *I* want one
> anyway. ;-)
>
>> One quite unintended benefit for me was the ability to read my news
>> through it.
>
> I guess that could be useful. Of course, *I* don't follow the news, so
> that wouldn't apply to me.
>
>> You can have it once a day download all the news and save
>> it in a nice format (like epub, which the Kindle is arrogant enough not
>> to support - but you can try the mobi format).
>
> It's not "arrogant". It's "product lock-in". It's a feature. ;-)
>
>> Also, I just got sick of having so many physical books.
>
> I'm one of those weird people who actually likes the look of a big
> weighty tome. I keep thinking about buying TAOCP, for example. (But then
> I realised that I wouldn't understand a word of it, so what's the point?)
>
> On the other hand, I'd only have a few of the best books. I wouldn't
> want to fill my house with millions of books that I'll only read once.
> But then, I don't read enough for that to be a danger...
Many people fill their houses with books they intend to read...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Obviously I can't find an example now that I want one, but Thunderbird's
>> dictionary is missing huge numbers of really quite common words - and it
>> isn't even a real "dictionary", it's just a word list. Similarly, when I
>> was at school I tried to look up "indefatigable" in the school's (paper)
>> dictionary, and it didn't exist. What on Earth makes you think that an
>> e-reader would have a more complete dictionary?
>
> Because it has!
> The Sony has both the Oxford Dictionary of English and the New Oxford
> American Dictionary.
Obviously I can't remember exactly which dictionary we had at school,
but it was a big thick thing from either Oxford or Cambridge or what
have you. And, as I said, it failed to contain the word I wanted. And
that was a proper reference dictionary, which cost *money*. It seems
highly implausible to me that a freebie dictionary would be more
comprehensive.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> On the other hand, I'd only have a few of the best books. I wouldn't
>> want to fill my house with millions of books that I'll only read once.
>> But then, I don't read enough for that to be a danger...
>
> Many people fill their houses with books they intend to read...
...in which case, I guess if you have an e-reader, you can just fill
your flash drive with books you intend to read. I can see how that might
be an advantage.
My mother, of course, fills her house with offcuts of wood. Because, you
know, in 15 years' time, you might just happen to need a piece of wood
that's 17.42 cm by 11.19 cm for something... >_<
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 18-1-2011 10:45, Invisible wrote:
>>> On the other hand, I'd only have a few of the best books. I wouldn't
>>> want to fill my house with millions of books that I'll only read once.
>>> But then, I don't read enough for that to be a danger...
>>
>> Many people fill their houses with books they intend to read...
>
> ...in which case, I guess if you have an e-reader, you can just fill
> your flash drive with books you intend to read. I can see how that might
> be an advantage.
>
> My mother, of course, fills her house with offcuts of wood. Because, you
> know, in 15 years' time, you might just happen to need a piece of wood
> that's 17.42 cm by 11.19 cm for something... >_<
on the iPad there is probably an app for that too.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 18/01/2011 9:43 AM, Invisible wrote:
>>
>> Because it has!
>> The Sony has both the Oxford Dictionary of English and the New Oxford
>> American Dictionary.
>
> Obviously I can't remember exactly which dictionary we had at school,
> but it was a big thick thing from either Oxford or Cambridge or what
> have you. And, as I said, it failed to contain the word I wanted. And
> that was a proper reference dictionary, which cost *money*. It seems
> highly implausible to me that a freebie dictionary would be more
> comprehensive.
What can I say other than I’ve got one and you haven’t?
Well I could say school dictionaries are abridged, your school bought
cheap dictionaries etc.
The dictionary on the Sony is not a freebie it is licenced by the OED
and if you were to buy it, it would cost you money.
I think that it is quite good and there have been few words that I could
not find an entry for. Lots of the entries have a link to the word it
was derived from. Some foreign words in common usage are included as
well. One thing it doesn’t do is select a phrase from the book text and
look it up but you can highlight the first work and see if there is an
entry for that.
BTW "indefatigable" is in this dictionary.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Obviously I can't remember exactly which dictionary we had at school,
> but it was a big thick thing from either Oxford or Cambridge or what
> have you.
That's called a concise or shorter dictionary, the majority of words
have been deleted out so it can fit in one book. This is a proper
dictionary:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Oxford-English-Dictionary-second-Volumes/dp/0198611862
> And, as I said, it failed to contain the word I wanted. And
> that was a proper reference dictionary, which cost *money*. It seems
> highly implausible to me that a freebie dictionary would be more
> comprehensive.
Try Chambers free dictionary online (and many others I'm sure), it has
the word you're after. I'm sure the Kindle can easily hold a 20-volume
dictionary, and I guess amazon can easily sort out a deal with a
supplier for it.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
