NYT: Do E-Readers Cause Eye Strain?

[Demas]

Saying the word "drastic" doesn't make it true... it's far easier to adjust the brightness on an incumbent technology or adjust the dimmer of your room's ambient light than it is to adopt an expensive, poor scaling, dead-end technology. In essence, e-ink is the best solution for doing it a stupid way.

As for Pixel Qi, they've already made it to market and are currently in production and with contracts in place, just not the consumer market. OEMs have already voted with their dollars.

[DawnFalcon]

They've made it to market? Great, where can I buy one? That's the only determinant of "made to market".

And SiPix is both cheaper and scales better than e-ink, if ASUS (about the only company I'm willing to take pre-release statements from and believe, heh) are right.

[Demas]

I'm sorry, I can't have a conversation with someone so dense as to believe the market is only consumer level and that the transaction, production, suppliers, materials, and OEM flow is not the market. The explicit dictionary definition stating: "Market - the world of commercial activity where goods and services are bought and sold." But, of course, an arrogant self-inflated view of one's self importance would define the market as solely "Where can I buy one?"

The sycophancy of derision towards 3Qi while simultaneously hailing SiPix is disturbing, nevermind the outright hypocrisy and irrelevance of citing an e-paper technology that isn't e-ink (although it share the same low contrast of e-ink, brilliant).

[DawnFalcon]

I'm sorry, I thought that something on the market would actually be buy able. I'm so dense that I actually believe in being able to buy the product, rather than taking it on faith.

Sycophancy? Sorry, I'm not schizophrenic, I'm afraid you're referring to someone else. And gasp, of course something with low contrast can't be a proper reading tech, right, despite the fact that it looks to be far more readable than e-ink due to its darker black point.

But of course, the track record of ASUS (excellent) vs 3Qi (zero, plus based on a project which has been a failure of a scale usually only seen in government contracting - and with the same kind of unit cost overruns) has nothing to do with it...

[Demas]

Again with the "I, I, I"... you realize there are a number of things in the market that you can't buy right? The funny thing is that you consider the consumer level a high or magic threshold when it is the lowest. Anyone can go out and exchange a physical object for money and if you don't, just shrug and walk away. Selling your IP in the OEM market place involves transaction costs and liability if you don't perform on your contracts, having already cleared that bar, the consumer level is trivial. Pixel Qi has cleared that bar and their product has been bought.

For someone fond of reading, you could do to increase your vocabulary (first the mishap with "market" and now this)... you're fawning over a prototype reflection technology completely upending your own "market" based criteria for the sake of white knighting reflection- which, incidentally, 3Qi does (as well as transflective and emissive). Whatever it's qualities, you've completely failed to address the pricing scalability once again... or is this as true as your "drastic" statement? The infrastructure of e-ink, Mirasol, and SiPix is infinitesimally small compared to LCD, there's no comparison with respect to price per size per unit scaling.

As for the ad hominem attack against a charitable initiative in the OLPC, considering the scope of its vision it's a phenomenal success which, incidentally, is still in operation, still iterating, and providing aide to Haiti as we speak.

By contrast, we have you and your, "I, I, I" based definitions....

[DawnFalcon]

"you realize there are a number of things in the market that you can't buy right?"

Sure, I can't buy say high end spy gear. But an e-ink reader? Hmm...

And it's not an ad hominen, it's a simply and clear statement of fact. "Scope of vision" is precisely the issue, they promised the sky and miserable failed to even manage to jump. It's a massive failure which is still sucking an amazing amount of effort which would be far better put into projects which are both successful and deliver far more cost-efficient benefits.

The slam on technologies which are now only achieving volume production, and one cannot simply extrapolate their scalability from one to another applies double to ones which are simply not yet available.

And sure, I - as opposed to your company propaganda. Are you employed by Pixel Qi or are you taking their money on a per-piece basis? (Serious question).

[Demas]

In any case, you were the first to pull the word "idiot" out of your hat and have little interest in the derail, let's restate the essential points:

- LCD can match ambient lighting and ambient lighting is more easily changed than paying for an e-ink based device.
- LCD is the incumbent technology which has incredible value per inch scaling compared to any other e-reader technology barring budget TFT LCD.
- Pixel Qi has already sold to OEMs a technology which takes advantage of LCD infrastructure and provides a transmissive, transflective, and reflective experience for any reading environment more cost effectively, with higher DPI, color-hinting, and video-capable response time than current consumer e-ink.

If you can confine yourself to the points, I'm happy to discuss them.

[Demas]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

"you realize there are a number of things in the market that you can't buy right?" Sure, I can't buy say high end spy gear. But an e-ink reader? Hmm...

Ha, so you really don't get what the market means. 3Qi is IP. The IP has been sold (as a license) and put into production by OEMs with liability attached (unlike a fungible real good). That is WAY more significant than handing you an e-reader, but an "I" mentality isn't going to get you there.

And it's not an ad hominen

Brother, invest in an e-dictionary... I know the experience is terrible in e-ink but it would help you significantly. Moreover, you've yet to propose alternatives... it's easy to critique if you've not lifted a hand and don't particularly care about the third world or lack any vision beyond an "I" based consumer attitude... but your argument is exactly like your criticism. Let's see:

It's a massive failure which is still sucking an amazing amount of effort which would be far better put into projects which are both successful and deliver far more cost-efficient benefits.

Hilarious, just like that, "successful and far more cost-effective"... just as stirring as your "drastically" statement. You're very good at saying things without any basis, but in any case, OLPC did exactly what it hoped to do, take a first step... one that bore fruit like William Kamkwamba or their ability to help in Haiti right now and to iterate the OLPC. What have you done?

[DawnFalcon]

Edit: Never mind, I just reported you for trolling. The massive flop of the OLPC project is public record, your insistance otherwise is a clear marker of that. OLPC was going to be $100, deliver tens of millions laptops and "change learning", and it ended up at over $200 for the initial runs, with just 1.25 million delivered and has miserably failed to change educational philosophies.

Charities need to be held to the same standards as anyone else. Unsuccessful, splashy, wasteful efforts need to be hilighted, and the OLPC was all three. I give to charities with far better records.

And I repeat, please reveal your financial interests in PixelQi.

What have I done? Well, see, I don't have the need to brag, or to link my real life accomplishments to everyone on the web to see. Per Sanya Weathers, I don't "hang my ass out online".

[Demas]

So, essentially, rather than addressing the substance of my arguments as related to the thread, your only interest is in attacking OLPC- a charitable, still thriving organization- which is incidental to Pixel Qi a corporate producer of a competing e-ink technology. And finding out my occupation? Who's trolling indeed?

You're embarrassing yourself.

The funny thing is that 1.25 million devices to the third world that wouldn't have happened otherwise, William Kamkwamba's story, and the continued success of the organization to you is considered 1) A failure; while simultaneously 2) A threat to e-ink otherwise why raise the ad hominem so vehemently. Tragic.

Second, none, and in fact I've already revealed my occupation if you skim my short post history, but given your joy at leaping from non-sequitur to logical fallacy... I doubt that will comfort you very much.

So much for attempting to bring the thread back on rails, DawnFalcon insists on a tangential inquisition meant to snuff out any enemy of e-ink. How hilarious.

[DawnFalcon]

No, we can say for sure that a substantial portion of that 1.25 million WOULD have happened anyway. For one thing, it's not 1.25 million to the third world, it's 1.25 million total, over 175,000 were G1G1 and thus 1.075 million is more accurate from that alone. Moreover, many of the OLPC contracts were done on a competitive tender basis, i.e. If the OLPC had not been selected, another laptop would of been.


And no, I didn't ask your occupation, I asked you to disclose your entirely relevant financial links. For someone supposedly fixated on accuracy, you are simply not answering the question. Inquisition? No, simply disagreeing with your (party) company line.

There have been some successes generated by people who have left the OLPC project, such as Sugar, but it's notable that they left to do their work, because the OLPC abandoned the educational goals and focused on their weakest area, their hardware.

(And that's ignoring the very real privacy issues with Bitfrost)

[dmaul1114]

Demas, all DF does is go on rants and get people sucked into long arguments over semantics and other pointless crap.

Put him on your ignore list and be done with it.

[Demas]

Still going with the whole derail theme I see.

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

What have I done? Well, see, I don't have the need to brag, or to link my real life accomplishments to everyone on the web to see.

You realize that bragging about your modesty... isn't modesty, right? Moreover even if your premise of vanity is correct, it's a small price to pay for someone to feel good about themselves if they create a sustainable charitable organization. Once again, what have you done? Consume and critique from afar? Bravo.

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

Thus 1.075 million is more accurate from that alone.

For shame! They actually reached 1 million kids! Shame on them for wanting to do that and continuing that mission! I'm pretty sure you've lost the plot my friend.

I asked you to disclose your financial links.

Which is revealed by my occupation but hilarious considering your oh so eloquent "hang my ass out online" statement. You really have no grasp of logic or integrity do you?

[Demas]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

Demas, all DF does is go on rants and get people sucked into long arguments over semantics and other pointless crap.

Put him on your ignore list and be done with it.

Thanks, I appreciate it. Done.

[DawnFalcon]

You're still refusing to reveal your financial interests. Clearly.

And this isn't a sideline, it speaks directly and clearly to the heart of your stance on these issues. And great, they spent a lot of money reaching just a single million kids, spending far more money per-child than quite a few other companies - let alone charities - who have delivered better, standardized kit to more children.

And no, refusing to brag is refusing to brag. Your search for an agenda is amusing, but quite pointless. I don't have a financial stake in the success of a particular project. I don't feel I have any choice but to speak to the appropriate persons about your actions here, which are highly unprofessional.

dmaul1114 - And you still feel the need to troll in public because you cannot get over the fact other people have *gasp* different views to you. Heh.