I just donated to the EFF.
Like 75-100 books. Do you really need an e-reader just to read? Plus many e-books are overpriced, where used books only cost 1 penny plus shipping.
If it were me I'd buy the cheaper e-book available which is the Kindle for $79. I wouldn't go spending hundreds of dollars on a device.
The problem with $300-$400 in books is: where are you going to put them?
The poster is already an avid reader, thus (s)he surely has a sizable amount of books. As you cannot buy (yet) 400sqf on Amazon to expand your home, space becomes a premium.
My 2 cents.
I had this same problem. I *love* to read, but I was hardly reading anything.
Then my wife got me a Nook Color. And it's awesome
- Decent price
- B&N reader (very good!)
- on-line dictionary (English is my 3rd language)
- I can read ePubs and PDFs fine
- New Nook Color has Netflix
- Rooteable and good Nook Rooter community
- B&N has free ebooks every week
- If you root it, you can install Kindle Android App
- MicroSD slot
- Decent battery life
- Not awful reading outside
- I can read at night
So in those last 2 years I've read a lot, a little bit during lunch and some week-end marathons when wife is at work.
All in all, I love it and give it my OpKool Seal of Approval.
I'll watch it at TwiT.tv -> http://twit.tv/2012/07/30/mars-landing-special-aug-5th-10pm-pdt
The presenters/guests to this event will be:
Jonathan Strickland (How Stuff Works) -> http://www.howstuffworks.com/jonathan-strickland-author1.htm
Dr Kiki (Dr Kiki Science Hour) -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiki_Sanford
Phil Plait (Bad Astronomer) -> http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2012/07/20/mars-attacks-of-the-show/
Steve Sell (JPL, Sky Crane) -> http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/30jul_skycrane/
Hope they do a good job!
Fly in peace Sally.
Now cancer cannot touch you.
Your dream will live on with younger generations, thanks to your books and Sally Ride Science.
+1 Makes Sense
So not ALLOWING Flash, even when Adobe does all the work is being good? How about FORCING publishers to sell their content at a 30 percent loss on the App Store, that is being good?
How long has it taken for Adobe to publish Flash for Android? For ever. And it is sub-par, to say the least.
And Flash is still not on the Xoom yet.
And about the 30%, how much does a bookstore keep per sold book? It is about 50% (heard it on a recent show form Leo Laporte's TWiT.tv ) . Also an interesting read on publishing industry is http://www.fonerbooks.com/
With Apple, Amazon and now Google, authors are finally allowed to sell directly to their readers.
Back to Flash, I block Flash on both FFox and Chrome on my Linuxes. And Sure as hell I will not install it on my rooted nook color. So if I had an iThing, I would not want Flash on it.
Sure, most of Flash problems is due to awful Flash developers. But always bad developers go in hand with bad tools that allow small flash banners to max your CPU.
It is a hard day when on Slashdot someone praises Flash, a platform that has a history of being very unfriendly to *nix systems.
And don't make me call good'ole RMS on you, or he'll chase you all the way to your Starbucks with an EMACS manual while chanting "who needs Flash? Flash is not GNU/Free Software!".
Because Apple apparently wanted to wipe it to prevent the software from being usable/visible. Once you wipe it, the configuration for FindMyPhone is wiped too (the device has to be linked to an account in order to be found).
It's better to lose hardware that can only be looked at than lose the hardware and the software, which would reveal a lot more about features. Gizmodo couldn't even say what the screen resolution was, because all it does it ask to be re-imaged with software Gizmodo doesn't have access to install.
Apple never leaks prototypes into the wild for promotional purposes. If anything, the phone was stolen. Apple likes buzz, but is not going to benefit from two months of "don't buy an iPhone until this new one comes out."
Thanks for clarifying that you think Flash is not a problem on a multitouch device like the iPad because it works just fine on your non-multitouch Pocket PC device, as long as you have a joystick type controller to move around the mouse cursor.
The point is that existing Flash content assumes a mouse pointer because it's all designed to work on a Windows PC. That makes it a poor choice as a mobile platform.
Even as a lowest common denominator platform, Flash isn't capable of being deployed on the iPhone, the iPod touch, and the iPad, nor RIM's Blackberry. The Flash experience on Macs and PS3 and Wii and various other platforms that Adobe supposedly supports Flash playback on are similarly poor.
So unless you want to just drag a proprietary binary from the desktop to a mobile device and then kluge up the hardware to work like a mini-puter running Windows without any consideration of what makes a mobile device useful, Flash isn't any better than Windows Mobile.
Link to Original Source
The story here is that Newsweek found a dozen people who can provide anecdotal accounts of individuals not being successful while selling software in the App Store. Because while Apple turned the mobile software market from a failure to an astounding success, it's important to keep in mind that not everyone who makes a half-assed attempt to get rich quick via the iPhone will be snorting coke off hooker's asses in Cancun within a few weeks (just the approval process takes longer than that! Plus you have to save up for years to buy a Mac, and then scrounge up $99 for a certificate. That's all simply well out of the reach of most developers who want to get rich quick in mobile software.)
This is all newsworthy because Apple has sold a couple billion apps in its first year, and explaining away the success of the App Store is critically important for Apple critics. Casting a cloud over Apple's software store also helps provide some relief to the struggling stores run by competitors, and distracts away from the problems affecting Android, Symbian, and Windows Mobile.
That's also why the problem of Apple's successful trajectory with the iPhone is a core issue for Gartner, plenty of one-man consultant groups who shill for competing platforms and carriers, and of course, all of this is newsworthy to Slashdot because it offers some opportunity for negative discussion about Apple.
The idea is that "iTunes LP" would serve as the non-song content you used to get when you bought an album: the beautiful LP cover, lyrics, and other stuff. But upgraded to the digital era.
The problem with this non-story is that Apple isn't selling iTunes LP extras, it's giving it away when you buy the regular album associated with it.
The same format is used to deliver iTunes Extras, the same bonus format for movies. Essentially, both are designed to make extremely easy to author bonus content that labels and studios (including indies) can use to add value to their existing work.
Obviously, Apple doesn't want to launch the new format with a bunch of crap, and taint it with mocking commentary that equates garbage or wierdo music with the format. So it launched the new format with iTunes 9 using a dozen big music acts and a similar number of recent movies. There has been the typical hysterical fit from poorly sourced, half-right "tech news" pieces that claimed Apple hates indies and will charge $10,000 (!) to develop the titles.
This is clearly all uninformed bullshit because there's no way Apple would develop content for third parties for just $10,000 a pop. Not even a professional authoring artist would do these for that kind of budget. Compare the free involved with authoring a DVD or BluRay disc, or creating all the artwork for a band's website or a multimedia CD-ROM.
Slashdot picked up the story and keeps trying to bump it up into the air because it sounds bad for Apple. The reality is that this is the best possible album format design anyone in the FOSS community could have hoped for. It's open, you can built it yourself, and kids can even apply some remedial HTML skills to remix their own content downloads. It's the web with a minimal business model.