 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> Darren New escreveu:
>> nemesis wrote:
>>> work in kindle? They are all playable through this javascript
>>> interpreter, which I'm afraid won't quite run...
>>
>> It doesn't seem like it, but the browser has a "basic" mode and a
>> "desktop" mode, plus you can turn off javascript. So I'm not sure I
>> have it configured right and I don't have time to play with it at the
>> moment. :-)
>
> no prob. It'd be just a cool bonus.
Yeah. I wonder if one could fix it up to run better on the Kindle. They do
have various games. If I was getting into Kindle programming instead of xbox
programming, I'd very much try to make that work. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 13/01/2011 5:22 PM, Darren New wrote:
>
> That's the link I was looking for.
>
> http://www.slashgear.com/qualcomm-mirasol-color-ereader-hands-on-0869191/
>
Thanks for the link.
I want!
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New escreveu:
> nemesis wrote:
>> Darren New escreveu:
>>> nemesis wrote:
>>>> work in kindle? They are all playable through this javascript
>>>> interpreter, which I'm afraid won't quite run...
>>>
>>> It doesn't seem like it, but the browser has a "basic" mode and a
>>> "desktop" mode, plus you can turn off javascript. So I'm not sure I
>>> have it configured right and I don't have time to play with it at the
>>> moment. :-)
>>
>> no prob. It'd be just a cool bonus.
>
> Yeah. I wonder if one could fix it up to run better on the Kindle. They
> do have various games. If I was getting into Kindle programming instead
> of xbox programming, I'd very much try to make that work. :-)
so, it does run but not quite perfect, is that?
I saw a friend's kindle and it didn't seem to display CSS at all. So
perhaps the interface is just mangled because of CSS, but as for the
actual javascript, it runs and is able to interpret commands fine?
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> so, it does run but not quite perfect, is that?
No. It doesn't even show me the menu of choices, as if the javascript is
turned off or something.
I go to the tinyURL, it refreshes/redirects/whatever, and says
PARCHMENT
is an intepreter for interactive fiction. _find_ _out_ _more_
And then nothing after that. Altho it loads 75K or so.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 16:12:25 +0000, Invisible wrote:
> Besides, who wants a system that can delete the books you've paid for at
> any time, for no defined reason?
That's what backups are for. With my Nook, I back everything up so if
they delete the books for some reason, I have non-DRM versions of the
books I can "sideload" onto the device. (Yes, I typically do strip the
DRM from my purchases; they're my purchases, after all).
> My current phone has a camera in it. I have no idea why. The images it
> forms are just barely recognisable.
I find that the camera in my phone (HTC Droid Incredible) aren't bad, but
if I want to do something more than just show my wife something when I'm
traveling, I'll use a camera - even a lower pixel density camera (after
all, it's not just about the number of megapixels).
> It also thinks its am MP3 player. I have no idea why. The sound quality
> of a 2mm speaker is, obviously, abysmal.
That's what headphones or speakers are for. I have an external speaker
that I use with my phone when I want to listen to Slacker.com or part of
my MP3 collection. But I also use an iPod since I've got speaker docks
that work with it.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 08:54:15 -0800, Darren New wrote:
> Actually only *deleted* once. The second time, it was just removed from
> the store. It was unclear from the articles I read whether it was
> actually removed from the devices that had already purchased it as well.
> (I.e., if you read exactly what the article said, the answer is "no". If
> you assume the reporter was typing exactly what Amazon said, the answer
> is "no". If you read all the rhetoric surrounding it, the answer is
> "yes".)
Removed from the archive as well - so if you bought them and archived
them, they were gone.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 16:41:35 +0000, Invisible wrote:
> Electronics, on the other hand, requires large amounts of energy for its
> production, and lots of exotic and usually toxic substances that are
> rare and difficult to find, and difficult to deal with once the device
> is no longer wanted.
>
> And, uh, /which/ one of these is more sustainable?
Studies have been done that show that if you purchase "x" electronic
books per month (I forget how many, but it was a small number, 2-3
maybe), after a year of using the same device, you've become more
sustainable than dead tree books.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 14:28:53 -0200, nemesis wrote:
> that's plain FUD last time I heard, both from tree killers and
> traditional book publishers.
Um, no, they did actually delete one title (an Orwell book, IIRC), and
then they stopped selling another title and deleted it from people's
archive (but not the device).
The first incidence created quite a kerfuffle on the 'net. I'm surprised
you didn't see any of it.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 08:51:47 -0800, Darren New wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
>> that's plain FUD last time I heard, both from tree killers and
>> traditional book publishers.
>
> Well, they've done it twice already. My response is that it's so rare
> you can just go out and buy the book on paper if it happens to you.
Except that you've already paid for it, so why should you pay again for
it?
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson escreveu:
> On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 14:28:53 -0200, nemesis wrote:
>
>> that's plain FUD last time I heard, both from tree killers and
>> traditional book publishers.
>
> Um, no, they did actually delete one title (an Orwell book, IIRC)
hope it was not 1984 or else it'd be too much of an irony...
> The first incidence created quite a kerfuffle on the 'net. I'm surprised
> you didn't see any of it.
I saw the first one, the second was mostly FUD.
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
