E Ink at CES 2012

This is Interesting.

North America's First Colour E Ink E-Reader

Today is the 'Expected' ship date for what is being advertised as North America's first Colour E Ink e-Reader, the ETACO jetBook Color. Guess they ship on Sundays in some parts of the world. . .

I've been waiting for colour e-ink for several years now. It's one of the main reasons why I waited so long to buy my first e-reader. Of course, six and a half months after I gave up waiting, look what they roll out.

Yet, the ETACO is not exactly what I was waiting for anyway.

You see, there are several promising technologies that have been announced over the past several years. For instance, there is the Mirasol screen, utilized by the Kyobo e-reader that was recently released in Korea (not to be confused with the Kobo e-Reader). Supposedly inspired by iridescent butterfly wings, Mirasol uses tiny electrically controlled mirrors. Besides the colour capabilities, this screen will refresh faster than current black and grey E Ink.

Even more promising is the Liquavista screen that was purchased by Samsung a year ago. This screen uses electrowetting technology. It promises far faster refresh rates, fast enough to watch video, and lower energy consumption. It is also easier and cheaper to make.

So how does North America's first colour e-Reader stack up? It uses an older technology that relies on several layers of colour filters layered over an ordinary E Ink screen. This has several disadvantages since it has many of the same deficiencies of a regular E Ink screen as well as having all those extra layers for the light to pass through, which ultimately produces a dimmer, less distinct image.

Still, the jetBook Color has been available in Europe for some time now and it was deemed popular enough to bring over here. I'd be interested in seeing one, but I'm not rushing out to pay $520 dollars for one.

HD TNG!!!

So I was busy making up my Christmas wishlist and I went to check if there are any deals on seasons of Star Trek: The Next Generation.

Wow! Just wow! HD TNG is coming in 2012! (links in order of my discovery)

That happened much earlier than I expected, but I guess next year is the 25th anniversary. 25 years? I'm getting old. . .

My only concern is that they will be redoing all the special effects rather than upconverting. This could be good and it could be bad. I guess it depends on how many elements they can salvage and how many they have to recreate. Hopefully they give us better looking planets for the first few seasons anyway.

Wait and see, I guess.

I hope they don't cost an arm and a leg either. . .

No DRM = Less Piracy?

Yeah, I knew this too (see my previous post). Apparently, a recent study shows that abandoning DRM would actually reduce digital piracy because legal customers would no longer be driven to other means in order to avoid being harassed. Shocking. . .

While I have a hard time understanding how anyone could not see this as common sense, I can believe that the sociopaths and other power freaks that run business might not.

Canada to Support Evil

I knew this was going to happen. . . but I wanted the 'tough on crime' Bill and the eradication of the long gun registry. . .

The specific evil to which I refer in the title of this post is the provision in Bill C-32 that makes it illegal to break DRM even for personal use of media that you paid for.

Let's be clear here: DRM is evil! It is the equivalent of selling a house that only one person can live in, no one can visit, the key may or may not open the front door even if the newest version of key has been provided, ownership can be revoked at any moment at the whim of the vendor, yet it cannot be resold when the 'owner' needs to move to a new city and it cannot be jacked up and trucked to the new property.

The most annoying aspect of this is that DRM serves no purpose unless law-abiding customer annoyance is the purpose. Pirates tear through DRM like tissue paper. Sometimes, the new encryption is broken before it even hits the market.

In fact, it can be argued that digital piracy exists, in part, because of DRM. This is due to the annoyance factor. Personally I have been stung with a number of Blu-rays that simply won't load despite installation of the latest firmware. Worse yet, the new firmware broke compatibilty with some of my Blu-rays that previously would load.

And I know I'm not the only one being inconvenienced by DRM. In fact, I would wager that the only people being inconvenienced by DRM are legal consumers. I've read many testimonials on the internet from those who have purchased a game that, due to draconian DRM (worthy of its own post), was unplayable so they downloaded a cracked copy. I've also read about people ripping DVD's just so that they don't have to watch the anti-piracy ad every time they want to watch a movie.

Just to highlight some of the lunacy this Bill represents, here are a few quotes from the article listed above:

"Bill C-32 would make it legal for consumers to make a back-up copy of content to protect against loss or damage."

Then later:

"Under the law, Canadians will not be allowed to break digital locks, even if it's for personal use. This includes picking a lock on a DVD purchased overseas to watch at home or to transfer a purchased e-book to read on another personal device."

How does it even make sense to say that you can make backups for personal use, yet you can not bypass the DRM to do so?

Useless.

Meanwhile there is still no word about removal of the 29 cent levy on blank CD's, which is supposed to compensate musical artists for piracy (and tacitly making said piracy legal) or how this will affect the Mountie's stance regarding file-sharers.

And hey, what is a conservative government doing meddling in the affairs of business anyway?

Harper! Laissez-nous faire!

P.s. Tivo and other PVRs were illegal? What was Futureshop really selling in all those boxes then?

"The law will legalize everyday consumer practices, such as using a personal video recorder to record a TV show for later viewing or copying music from a purchased CD to an MP3 player. These are not allowed under the current law."

Total Recalled

How come I never hear about things until well after the fact?

For those who didn't click the link above (and probably some who did) let me elucidate: They are remaking Total Recall!

Why they are doing this is not really a secret. In short, fewer people are paying $13.00 a ticket to watch movies in room full of inconsiderate people, fewer people are buying Low-Def DVDs to watch on their High-Def TVs, and even fewer people are buying overpriced DRM protected locked BDs (Can anyone say "Netflix"?).

So Hollywood is turtling into the realm of 'Safe' movies (i.e. remakes, low budget productions, etc.). And what could be safer than remaking a successful movie. And that's not all, it's one of the most successful of the many adaptations of Philip K. Dick's writings. For the record, these other adaptations are Blade Runner (1982), Screamers (1995), Total Recall 2070 (1999 TV Series), Imposter (2002), Minority report (2002), Paycheck (2003), A Scanner Darkly (2006), and The Adjustment Bureau (2011). Also in the works are a Blade Runner Sequel and a Prequel.

Will I go see it? That is question that I can't answer yet.

Interestingly, it seems that Colin Farrell didn't get enough of a taste of (P. K.) Dick. Previously he played a fatally naive detective on Minority Report, opposite Tom Cruise. I just don't know how successful they will be replacing an Austrian Oak with an Irish Twig.

Be sure to check out the picture of the flying car prop over on the Wikipedia page.

P.s. Somebody please pick up the Lone Ranger project! So typical to cut a potentially good film when the crappy one you just made bombs at the box office

Cyberpunk lives!

Guess I'm going to have to re-read Neuromancer soon. . .

I remember when I first heard about Cube. Like so many movies, the trailer was better than the feature. But It did prompt me to watch each of its sequels. (for a really good Canadian film check out Foolproof)

I haven't seen Splice yet. It really doesn't look like my thing.

At any rate, I think Natali is probably the right man for the job.

Hobbits and the Soap Opera Effect

I'm worried about the new Hobbit movie. Very worried.

Not that long ago my family upgraded to a flat panel LCD television. It turns out that our chosen model was not the best (it really could use more black definition) but it works reasonably well. I especially enjoy watching bluray movies on it. What baffled me at first was that one of the 'features' of our new TV, when activated, actually made the viewing experience worse.

That feature is called motion interpolation, or TruMotion (240hz) on our LG. All new flat panels have it, although each manufacturer has their own name for it (Sony = MotionFlow, Panasonic = Intelligent Frame Creation, Sharp = Fine Motion Enhanced, etc.). What it boils down to is that this feature is supposed to create a smoother, apparently more high-def picture by increasing the frame rate. To accomplish this, they add frames between those actually being sent to the television. On some this is accomplished by simply repeating the last frame shown. On others, a computer program interpolates what the new frame 'might' have looked like, had it ever existed. Obviously the former is more prone to judder and the latter is more prone to introduced artefacts.

That doesn't actually sound so bad. In fact there are many advocates for this new technology, including one very vehement employee at my local Sony store.

But I just can't stand it. It makes everything look cheap and artificial, a little too smooth or fast. Some people say it looks like everything was shot with a camcorder. Others say it looks like Corry. I suppose that's how it got the nickname "Soap Opera Effect".

I remember when I first saw this effect in action. They were playing Quantum of Solace at the Sony Store. Having not seen the film previously, I assumed that MGM had simply gone cheap on the production values. Let me tell you, anyone familiar with CBC or BBC programming would recognize the look.

Or maybe not. I know a number of people who can't tell the difference.

Fortunately for me, you can turn this 'feature' off.

48 Frames Per Second

So what does this have to with the Hobbit?

Both James Cameron and Peter Jackson have announced that their next projects will be shot in 48 fps (and/or 60 fps for the Avatar sequels, but who cares about those?). They describe it as smoother, more clear. In fact, they describe it exactly the same way proponents of motion interpolation describe 240 hz TV's.

All possible technical difficulties aside, this will effectively force us all to abandon the familiar film look.

Eventually.

Apparently I'm not the only who's concerned which has prompted Peter Jackson to announce that a regular 24 fps print will be made from the 48 fps master so that every theatre will be able to show the movie. But he also says that it looks different than a regular 24 fps film when taken from the 48 fps master. I'm also anxious about the silky look he's talking about making via a larger shutter angle.

He also didn't mention anything about home video versions.

I don't know, am I a Fossil? A Ludite? Or is it that I simply know what I like?

A New Novel, A New Name

There is a new book being released today. It is called Up Against It by M. J. Locke. I don't quite know what to make of it yet, but I have read the five sample chapters offered here.

My interest in this book lies mostly with the name on the cover. You see, it turns out that Morgan J. Locke is a pen name for Laura J.Mixon, an author that I have followed for some time. Apparently she felt the need to publish her first novel in nine years under a made up name. Ever since I found out I have been scratching my head wondering why.

Here are some reasons I came up with as to why an author might possibly choose a pen name:

1. There is an issue with his/her name itself. Perhaps the name is hard to remember, spell, or pronounce. Maybe it sounds silly, stupid, or obscene. Or it could be that it is the same as, or similar to, another author or a well known person.

2. He/She is reclusive, fears fame, or fears retribution for the published work.

3. To disguise his/her gender. Perhaps they feel that their books will sell better with a genderless name or a name of the opposite gender.

4. They are publishing a new book in a genre that is different than those works they are already known for.

5. They are trying to distance themselves from their past works.

The first two reasons don't seem to apply here. She is a published author with at least three and a half novels to her name. While I can not confirm that Laura J Mixon is her legal name (her twiter account is LauraJMG), it does appear to be a name that people who know her recognize her by. I do not find it hard to remember, pronounce, etc.

Morgan is certainly a gender neutral name. M. J. Locke even more so. I don't know that male names sell SF books any better than female names, but it is certainly possible that this is what she is going for. Although I do wonder why she didn't just go with L. J. Mixon then. It worked for J. K. Rowling (and she doesn't actually have a middle name).

Her previous novels have all been SF. This novel is not so different in genre from her last. So I don't think that's it.

So, until I get an answer from her, I'm left to assume that she has abandoned her old fans to start fresh. Tor even proudly announces that this is her first book. . .

Edit: I see she has finally provided an answer to my question and it sounds reasonable, if slightly insulting.

Edit #2: I mean of course that her decision to follow the advice of her publisher was reasonable. That publishers think readers need to be manipulated to buy books is insulting, no matter how true.

Blade Runner Prequel and Sequel?

Is nothing sacred?

. . . I'll probably watch both

Editing The Past

Well, looks like the PC revisionists are at it again. At least they waited 100 years after the passing of Samuel Clemens before they took a hatchet to his work.

For those not in the know, apparently the publisher NewSouth Books has released a version of Mark Twain's classic novel, Adventures of Huckelberry Finn, in which all instances of a certain word which begins with the letter 'N' have been replaced with the word 'slave'.

I hope they have included an attribution to a second author, Alan Gribben, much as they have done with the novels of the new mashup genre. But I digress.

Why am I once again defending the use of the 'N' word? Because that's the word the author used. What's more, that's the word his characters would have used. Don't forget, this book was first published over 115 years ago. It is not only period correct, it was written in that period! In fact, initial criticism of the book wasn't that it contained the 'N' word, but rather, at least in part, that it portrayed a black man as a sympathetic and fully human person. Go figure.

Denying the realities of history is like poking out an eye. Sure, you might not see anything on that side anymore, but that doesn't mean that nothing is there.

It is even worse to push such ignorance on others. Want to know why the youth of today are so dumb? Look to those who are taking a black marker to history.

Wait a few more years and the word 'slave' will no doubt be replaced with 'freedom challenged person' or whatever PC term is popular at the moment. At least that would be synonymous with the word it is replacing (the first substitution, not the original).

Here are some famous quotes to close with:

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

- George Santayana

". . . he who does not know the past can never understand the present, and he certainly can do nothing for the future."

- John Diefenbaker

"Freedom includes the right to say what others may object to and resent. . . The essence of citizenship is to be tolerant of strong and provocative words."

- John Diefenbaker

"Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it."

- Samuel Clemens (aka Mark Twain)

More Bad News for Canadian Book Lovers

Last week DB Media, the Canadian branch of Direct Brands Inc., closed down due to bankruptcy. What does that mean? DB Media was a direct marketing company that operated Columbia House Canada and, more relevant to this blog, Doubleday Canada Book Club. DB media had operated for more than 70 years in Canada and was known as the largest direct marketer of books in Canada.

Not suprisingly, they blame the internet.

Which is ironic, because I actually was looking at joining through their website last year. I have an alternate theory based on the two reasons I ultimately did not join. They were:

1. The book club really didn't have enough selection for me. I barely found enough books to fit my introductory order of $1 books (plus $14.95 for shipping). I just could not see how I could justify fulfilling the obligation to buy 4 more books at cover price, plus shipping and taxes, over the next two years when I have better selection and prices elsewhere.

2. I was a former member of clubs like BMG and Columbia House movie club. Enough said.

Meanwhile, hundreds of Canadians are out of work, with no severance pay, just weeks before Christmas. Nice move guys

Amazon Vs. Canada and the Introduction of E-book Commerce

Sadly, my favourite place to buy books, the bargain books section at McNally Robinson, has been significantly downsized. This is hardly surprising, I suppose, following the news that McNally Robinson declared bankruptcy and closed two of its four Canadian locations at the end of last year.

Yet, defying all odds, American book retailers are apparently doing better during the recession as Amazon.com has moved to enter the Canadian market.

All this is occurring at a time when consumers are starting to move toward electronic books, lured by shiny e-readers and handy apps for the i-phone. Canada's largest book retailer, Indigo has entered the arena with its new Kobo ebook reader which retails for about $50 less than Sony's entry model. But this comes as the market is entering a price war that some predictions say will bring the price of e-readers down below $100 by the end of the year.

Personally, I don't think I will be lured away to the e-format until the prices reflect the actual value of the product. Seriously, shouldn't e-books be cheaper than books of the old dead tree variety?

Conventional books start in electronic format on an author's computer. Then trees are cut down, shipped to a mill, pulped, pressed, trimmed, shipped to a printing press, printed on, cut up again, bound and covered, shipped to distribution hubs, shipped to stores, and finally take up shelf space until (best case scenario) someone buys them. And that's just my simplified version of the process.

Conversely, e-books live entirely in cyberspace. Distributors only need one copy on a server in order to sell millions.

So why do e-books cost as much, if not more, than paper books? Why are we charged hardcover prices when there isn't even a paperback being placed in our hands? Didn't we already buy an expensive reader?

I'm guessing it's the same kind of scam as ATM fees, cell phone charges, and other vapourware that rich people use so that they don't have to live like the rest of us mortals.

And then there is the worry that even though money has changed hands, ownership has not.

To Kill a Mockingbird With One Stonehead

I've been listening to a lot of news-talk radio lately. I prefer my news to be less David Sazuki / Al Gore centric. At any rate, a particular story caught my attention (read it, that article is actually quite a fair overview of the subject). Apparently the mother of a student at Toronto's Malvern Collegiate Institute wants Harper Lee's famous novel, To Kill a Mockingbird, banned from the school library because it contains the racially offensive 'N' word.

Really? You want to ban one of the greatest anti-racism works of the 20th century because it portrays an accurate representation of Racism? You think that by revealing the wrongs in society, even those perceived to be behind us, the message itself becomes bad? That it somehow promotes or propagates the evil?

Well, upon further review, it seems the problem is larger than I first thought. I was never aware that there was any controversy surrounding Harper Lee's novel. But, unfortunately, it seems the book has been banned many times before. Although, it should be noted that objections to the novel centered more around the depictions of rape central to the plot, rather than the language that is now considered politically incorrect, until racial attitudes began changing in the 1970's.

Does anyone else ever feel like we're living in a Ray Bradbury novel?

Or perhaps it's more like a George Orwell novel? Certainly the social movement to redefine certain words and terms as politically incorrect (i.e. taboo) smacks of Newspeak. But what political correctness hasn't managed to do yet is to actually erase the 'N' word from the public consciousness. Who hasn't heard it, even just in passing, thanks to rap music? Blocking access to responsible discourse on a matter does not make it go away. In fact, ignorance may lead to naive acceptance or at the very least to conditions that foster resurgance of the very problem you blindly hope would just go away.

But here I am blithely tip-toeing around the word itself. Let me give you an example of a responsible use of the word:

'Nigger' is a derogatory term that has passed from regular use in the English language because it is offensive to a group of people and its use is generally considered taboo. It refers to people whose level of melanin pigmentation is within the higher range for humans and their skin is therefore darker. Usually one or more of their ancestors originated from the continent of Africa, although this is not universally true. Historically, this term was used by Caucasian owners toward their slaves. After slavery was abolished, the term continued to be used by racists. Any non-member of the group who uses the term 'Nigger' is now suspect of being racist whether the term was used as a slur or not. My advice: don't use the 'N' word.

(Hope that doesn't get censored. . .)

Of course, when writing about historical events, or even current matters involving racism, it would be irresponsible to gloss over the reality of the actions and language used.

Here is a set of quotes by a famous Canadian, former Prime Minister John G. Diefenbaker, that I think are fitting:

". . . he who does not know the past can never understand the present, and he certainly can do nothing for the future."

"Freedom includes the right to say what others may object to and resent... The essence of citizenship is to be tolerant of strong and provocative words."

Today, word has emerged that this latest outburst of insanity has been averted. But for how long, and what of those institutions that continue to ban such books, to suppress knowledge, and subvert future generations? To all those who insist on censorship, on giving up the right to freedom of speech and thought, I have one thing to say:

Baaa!

Edit (05/01/2011) - I have recently discovered that I was not the first to compare the censorship of To Kill a Mockingbird with the world of George Orwell's 1984.

"Recently I have received echoes down this way of the Hanover County School Board's activities, and what I've heard makes me wonder if any of its members can read.

"Surely it is plain to the simplest intelligence that “To Kill a Mockingbird” spells out in words of seldom more than two syllables a code of honor and conduct, Christian in its ethic, that is the heritage of all Southerners. To hear that the novel is "immoral" has made me count the years between now and 1984, for I have yet to come across a better example of doublethink.

"I feel, however, that the problem is one of illiteracy, not Marxism. Therefore I enclose a small contribution to the Beadle Bumble Fund that I hope will be used to enroll the Hanover County School Board in any first grade of its choice."

- Harper Lee in a 1966 'letter to the editor'.