Electronic Paper 221
Omega Prime writes: "The BBC has an article about the latest advances in E-Paper. That is, flexible display media that is both cheap and reuseable. The possibilities for this are endless, Can you say Holodeck wallpaper?" There's also an AP article. Do you ever get the feeling that electronic paper is going to be just around the corner for a long, long time?
Phase Three: Profit! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Phase Three: Profit! (Score:3, Interesting)
Personally, I'd love to have a single piece of e-paper for much of my periodical reading. I get many trade rags every week and I throw them away when I'm done with them. A single piece of paper that handles all my trade rags, hm, my wife might like that.
-- PhoneBoy
Re:Phase Three: Profit! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Phase Three: Profit! (Score:2)
Re:Phase Three: Profit! (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the cynic in you is correct. DRM is merely a euphemism for "Digital Profit Management", and has little to do with *your* rights at all. The concept of digital paper is cool beyond words, but the potential loss of personal control over works you purchase will probably nullify the coolness. When I buy a book or newspaper, I like to know that I've actually bought it rather than licensed it for some term, and that I will always have the ability to read it whenever I desire. Anyone who believes that when electronic paper is available publishers will play by the same rules that they follow now is naive.
Not to mention that books don't go blank when their batteries run out.
Re:Phase Three: Profit! (Score:3, Insightful)
If I write a book, and get it published, I have a right to be financially rewarded for my creative work.
You do NOT have a right to take my work and plaster it all over the fucking internet.
And that's what they're trying to stop. If stopping that means you can't make copies whenever you want, then that's just too bad...
People making copies of my work denies me of my right to be compensated for my time. This is also the right of all the people who work for the publisher, the printers, and the bookshops to be paid for their time, and without people buying books these people will all be out of a job.
You know, every time I hear someone parrot "Information wants to be free" I translate it as "I want everything handed to me on a plate and I shouldn't have to pay for it".
Re:Phase Three: Profit! (Score:3, Insightful)
And why not? You don't want people reading your book?
And don't tell me about lost profits. It's not as if I would have necessarily "compensated you for your time" by buying your book if it had NOT been available for free on the net.
Do you also object public libraries? After all libraries allow people to read your book without "compensating" you.
Profit for Sonny Bono (Score:2)
Encouragement is done by giving them exclusive copyrights to the work they create, protected by law, for a limited time.
Limited? Every 20 years, the US Congress accepts $6 million from Disney employees and amends copyright law to extend all terms by 20 more years [everything2.com]. They get away with this because courts currently consider "the lifetime of the universe less one day" a valid limit because they don't consider the preamble "to promote the progress of science and useful arts" to limit the power of Congress in any way. For more info, see Eldred v. Ashcroft [harvard.edu].
Distributing a work over the internet without the author's permission or even knowledge isn't just illegal, it's immoral.
How is an author morally entitled to royalties 50 years after the author is dead and buried in the ground?
libraries do not republish material, they lend a specific copy.
What is the digital equivalent of such an action?
(of course, having the 'limited time' being shorter than a human lifespan would be nice)
Nice, but unless you have more than $6 million to bribe Congress to repeal the Bono Act, it's not gonna happen.
Re:Profit for Sonny Bono (Score:2)
A major problem here is that you're not distinguishing between really old books, and brand newly published ones. So, where is the cutoff line where its ok to redistribute someone's copyright?
How is 28 years less than reasonable? (Score:2)
A major problem here is that you're not distinguishing between really old books, and brand newly published ones. So, where is the cutoff line where its ok to redistribute someone's copyright?
The purpose of copyright (often ignored even by the courts) is to reward creation. A work should fall into the public domain once the author has been given a reasonable chance to receive a reward for creating the work. How is twenty-eight years (as specified in the original Copyright Act of 1790) not a reasonable chance?
How can an author receive anything after the author is dead?
I also have issues over control of derivative works such as fan fiction, but that's another discussion.
Re:How is 28 years less than reasonable? (Score:3, Insightful)
You make it sound as if some sugarplump(C) fairy were to descend and drop coins onto your pillow. This "reward" of yours depends on a powerful and undemocratic IP regime. Sklyarov (a Russian) is in jail for violating a U.S. law. There are ongoing efforts to "subtract" functionality from computers. Harry Potter fan sites are shut down, The Church of Scientology has shutdown websites which criticize its practices and quote from Hubbard's diary entries. Rock fans can't post lyrics of their favorite songs. The right of first sale is being undermined, Internet protocols, file formats, data standards (i.e. CD) are being deliberately broken. ISP's are being harassed with lawyer-spam cease-and-desist notices. Individual users, who often can't afford a lawyer, are bullied into shutting down legal websites. Linking to "circumvention" material is now outlawed. Biographies are surpressed because the family (which inherits the "rights" of the subject) threaten to sue authos who excerpt letters or journals. All to protect the copyright regime. See, most of the world doesn't think in terms of you getting "a reward" -- they understand that they are being screwed.
And instead of dreaming of coins rattling on your pillow, you should be on their side.
The commons is important. Shakespeare would not have written half his stuff if similar IP laws were enforced then. He "borrowed" almost all of his plot lines from recently published books or histories. And he didn't buy "the rights" to those works -- he just used them. Be glad he did. When we have a large and growing commons from which authors can draw, it improves literature.
Also, almost all (say 90%) of revenues from median books are made in the first 2 years of publication. If there was no copyright which lasted more than 2 years, we would keep 90% of the money which currently flows to artists. If that number is extended to, say, 10 years, then over 99% of book revenue would be protected. But there would be additional revenue from the new works which are not possible due to a shrinking commons. There would be additional revenue from new distribution models. If data formats and hardware remain open and functional, then even the little guys might stand a chance of self publishing without registering for some XYZcorp "bookGuard" which costs thousands of dollars. More authors, more books, at least as much money as today.
Finally, the problem here with the self-styled "content-providers" I talk to is not that they really believe they are being ripped off or that they will make less money in a world with less copyrights. They just have a basic and fundamental issue with anyone enjoying or benefitting from their work without them getting paid. So I surf to some guys homepage, and he has some photos of flowers and a beach. At the bottom, he writes, (c) blah blah. Now, fantasies aside, either no one will download those pics and pass them around, or someone will and wont pay him for it. Either way he's not getting paid. But it hurts this web "author" that someone somewhere is enjoying his work for free. Imagine if everyone took that approach? What if the gardener copyrighted his contribution to that beach scene? And the guys who cleaned up the trash? How about the architect of the light house in the background -- why shouldn't he be cut in on the action? Perhaps we should wear devices on our eyes to prevent us from enjoying the fruits of others' labor -- without an instantaneous micropayment being sent to their bank account.
Do you see my point? You are not entitled to a cash reward for all instances of people enjoying your work. There must be limits.
Melancholy elephants (Score:2)
There are 2 things that will help him - the quality of the work ie will people enjoy it, and his copyright over the work. If the work is good, and people enjoy it, there may be a return. However, if the copyright is reduced and after a few years he has no rights on it at all ( ie anyone can copy it ) then the chances of making a return are reduced.
If he hasn't made a return by ten years, the chance of making a return after that period is further reduced by market demand for the latest and greatest.
Now, how does that help with increasing the number of authors / books? Simple, it doesn't! In fact it is the exact opposite!
Not always. We need to maximize the total utility function (i.e. utility of work in copyright + utility of work in public domain), somewhere between "no copyprivilege" and "perpetual copyprivilege." I don't see how a 95-year copyright term [everything2.com] is closer to this maximum than the 28-year term of the Copyright Act of 1790. In fact, long-term copyprivileges make it harder to create a musical work without accidentally stepping on somebody else's privileges (see also the short story "Melancholy Elephants" [tale.com] and the Yes! We have no bananas! case [everything2.com]).
You propose to limit the financial reward to authors.
Patent law already limits the financial reward to inventors. I propose consistency in the limits.
The simple economics of the western world ... means that perhaps, some authors will not be able to write full time, and it will be far more difficult for new authors to be published at all, whether self published or not. So, you argue that reducing copyright will increase the number of authors / books, when you argument supports the opposite.
Justify this. What percent of books published nowadays do not make 90% of their total gross revenue within ten years after first publication? What percent of Hollywood motion pictures (not counting remakes that add significant original content) make any significant amount of money after even two years on the market?
Why don't you just admit it. You do not want to pay for it that's it, something for nothing. Simple!
Or I can't afford to pay for it. Or the author's estate refuses to license it at any price. Or I accidentally independently created it, and I can't afford an attorney to convince a judge of this.
Re:Ifs and buts (Score:2)
How about an emphatic NO, for starters. Book reviewers, and ESPECIALLY movie reviewers, aren't worth the time you waste reading their pontifications, because invariably what they consider to be an amazing , life-changing experience, I'll consider dull, unoriginal crap.
Let's slowly and painfully state the overly obvious:
It's all subjective. I'd much rather get a reccommendation from a friend with similar tastes and intelligence levels to mine, or better still borrow that book/cd/movie/software/x from my friend and try before I buy.
Take the case of music CDs. Say my friend reccommends a CD and I go out and buy it, take it home and find that it turns out to in fact be drivel from my point of view, then I'm kinda screwed. The record company has got my money for a product I don't even want, because I can't get a refund for an opened package. If I can borrow that CD for a while, or even (Loki forbid!) download a few tracks to check them out, then I have more of a basis for a rational purchasing decision, according to my tastes. And that's how it should be.
Would you buy a car without test-driving it?
You have a right to be paid for your SERVICE (Score:2)
NOT for you creativity.
In my honest opinion, no one owns it after you release it. You still are needed to create it though, so paying you for the service of writing the book would ensure you get paid in a world where you dont own the books you release.
Stop making excuses, it works for steven king, its working for redhat, its working for mandrakesoft, transgaming, so it can work for you.
Re:Phase Three: Profit! (Score:4, Insightful)
True. Very true.
And that's what they're trying to stop. If stopping that means you can't make copies whenever you want, then that's just too bad...
Wrong. Very wrong. As a US citizen I'm subject to it's laws which grant me the right to make copies of legally obtained works whenever I want for limited purposes. See Title 17 of the US Code [gpo.gov] for more information. It's not "just too bad" if I can't, it's a violation of my civil liberties.
I've just finished college where I had a friend who insisted on photocopying the textbooks for all of his classes to avoid paying the (sometime outrageous) prices at the campus store. Is that legal? No. Could just about everyone at the university have done it? Yes. But of the 6000+ students at the school, I'm aware of very few (actually, only the one) that do this. If loads of college students, many of whom are living on tight budgets, don't try to cheat the system now despite how easy it is, then I doubt that many more people will try to cheat the system just because they can with ebooks.
Lack of DRM in ebooks most likely won't lead to a noticeable increase in the piracy of books. However, DRM that infringes on my rights as a US citizen (to make legal copies of a work for certain purposes or to resell the work) will stop me from purchasing a particular book. The inconveniences of DRM are likely to be more harmful to publishers than piracy of ebooks.
Re:Phase Three: Profit! (Score:2, Interesting)
One day he came in and said 'I've just been told that the publishers have increased the price to £40. I think that's out of the price range for most student, and can't ask you to pay that'
His solution? Telling everybody to fuck the publishers and photocopy the entire book! Those publishers must've been mightily pissed off.
Re:Phase Three: Profit! (Score:2)
However people don't routinely photocopy books, for the simple reason that the resultant copy costs more than a bought copy. (Unless the book in question is out of print, etc)
Indeed you could probably apply a rule of thumb that a book which is cheaper to photocopy than to buy is overpriced...
Lack of DRM in ebooks most likely won't lead to a noticeable increase in the piracy of books.
Also DRM is something which fundermentally cannot work. Especially since once it has been broken any "script kiddie" can then use the methods.
Re:Phase Three: Profit! (Score:2)
You don't actually have the have the right to be financially rewarded for your writing. Any more than someone making a widget has the right to to make a profit.
The right you have is to control who can copy your writing (in places such as the US this is specifically to encourage the author to continue writing.) But it isn't a right to money only something which can help in the making of money.
If stopping that means you can't make copies whenever you want, then that's just too bad...
Except that if you sell copies of something you can't control what someone does to them. The best you can do is to make a "pirate" copy more expensive than a legitimate copy. Which has been the case with books. But isn't the case with CDs, where the media coat is considerably less than the usual sale price.
People making copies of my work denies me of my right to be compensated for my time. This is also the right of all the people who work for the publisher, the printers, and the bookshops to be paid for their time, and without people buying books these people will all be out of a job.
Not only do you not have such a right the publisher has no right to make a profit from publishing. It's a business like any other, subject to the "dog eat dog" rules of capitalism.
Changes in technology can easily render certain type of business model obsolete. But entrenched businesses (with entrenched business models) don't like the fact that changing the way they work has a big risk associated with it. A current way of dealing with this is to lobby for laws which attempt to make current business methods the law of the land and to force new technologies to emulate older ones.
Consider also that new technologies, like the web, also effectivly mean that any author can publish their own work, rather than having to convince a third party to do so. This also frightens publishing companies.
No rights to profit on most of Earth (Score:2)
[sarcasm on] And if I create software and get it published, I have the right to be financially rewarded for it. If I don't get financially rewarded for it then I suppose I have the right to sue people into buying the software. [/sarcasm]
You haven't a clue about business.
In business, you make products that people want to buy. This means if your book sucks or is over-priced people won't buy it and you lose.
I don't weep for you any more than I would weep if the X-Box didn't make it. If your book isn't being sold its because of one of these basic marketing ideas:
- Your book sucks.
- Your book costs too much
- Your book delivers too little
- The competition's book is better
- The restrictions you put on the book's use have scared people away
- Your book isn't written in the same language of those you are targetting
- etc.
Common, do it, sue me for not buying your book. I really need a laugh. That and I really need some $$$ countersuing someone for a frivilous lawsuit.
Oh, and if people are making digital copies of your book then this is why:
- They are cheap and wouldn't have bought it to start with
- They found your book somewhat useful but you wanted more than they wanted to spend
- They looked at it for a few minutes and didn't even bother saving it because it sucked
As far as cheap people go, you'll never make money off them. They'd do without rather than buy your book. Don't believe me? Ask how many home users of MS Office 2k would buy it at its opening price of $800.
If you want sales and aren't getting any, give a few copies to your friends and get them to write some margin notes and actually (gasp!) make the book into something they would want to buy.
>without people buying books these people will all be out of a job.
Sorry to hear your job will be replaced in the 21st century. I guess you're joining all the office clerks who weren't needed when computers replaced their jobs.
Maybe you should either consider a career change or a market change if the future scares you.
>You know, every time I hear someone parrot "Information wants to be free" I translate it as "I want everything handed to me on a plate and I shouldn't have to pay for it".
You know, ever time I hear someone say they have the right to be compensated for their time I translate it as "My company makes a crappy product and no one is buying it so our best business plan is to force them to buy it with laws!".
Re:Phase Three: Profit! (Score:2)
Inidividual people aren't quite this way, but companies and corporations can be reliable predicted to attempt to take as much advantage of the target market as they can. Individuals, when considered at all, will be dehumanized as "customer"s.
Given the DMCA, e-paper is a terrible concept. If the UCITA were more wide-spread then it would be outrageously unacceptable, but even as it is there would need to be a better than 30% price advantage for equivalent materials. How much, specifically, would be needed depends on the precise details of what I wanted to get out of the purchase, and what the "license" was. But a 30% advantage would be the minimum. That would be for, say, a newspaper, or a comic book. Actual books would probably be in the 50% or greater range. Reference books would be in the 90-95% range. Text books in the 80-90% range. Literature would be in the 60-99% range. Gift books might get into the 50% range, largely because I make a lot of errors in predicting what someone else would want.
OTOH, if the book were released under an equitable license, say pay once and we'll let you download it whenever you want into the particular (coded) receiver that you use the first time, then there are circumstances where it might be worth even more than a paper book. Perhaps. But even that requires a degree of trust on my part considerably higher than a paper book would require. And even then the DMCA could be interpreted to mean that it was illegal to extract quotations, etc. So I doubt that it could be worth more than, say, 80% as much as a regular book. (I don't extract quotations very often, but being prohibited from doing so would degrade the entire experience associated with the book. And the more I liked some section, the more the experience would be degraded. ["You've got to remember not to quote this..."].)
Perhaps my feelings are unusual. They often are. But I expect that they are more common among those people who buy more books.
.
A common conciousness? (Score:3, Interesting)
Real advance is the refresh rate. (Score:4, Interesting)
This makes video possible. This is in contrast to other efforts, which have concentrated at static images with relatively slow refresh.
Also, the display is capable of displaying 256 shades of gray. This would make anti-aliased text possible.
Imagine having a roll-up video screen in your pda/laptop. You could have a pen-sized cylinder that is your pda and simply pull the screen out when you needed it.
Re:Real advance is the refresh rate. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Real advance is the refresh rate. (Score:2)
Re:Real advance is...Streaming Video ALL OVER (Score:3, Interesting)
The NextGen of Tech may well go to the device manufacturers and the consumer megalopolies who actually try to deliver what customers want...
Imagine the Gibsonian uses for this stuff...
1. Advertisings displays out of BRunner and Neuromancer, entire urban Downtowns morphed into 24/7 streaming video walls
2. Guess, Gap, Gucci, Hillfiger, Lauren, et al incorporating streaming logo displays in clothing
3. Functional PDA's that are wearable and shapeable to specialized applications
4. Rooms that can be turned in SensorySurround MM experiences with 5.1 or DTS or DolbyPro, throw in a DVD or IMAX experience, talk about "Immersive"!!
5. Genuine combat gear (ala "Predator") that can mimic the surrounding environment..the ultimate "Ghillie Suit" for snipers and SpecOps
6. Completely accurate training environments for many, many "environmentally difficult" training situations from fire/rescue, law enforcement, combat, flight, driving, to Wall Street Trading Floor Simulations...WHOO DOGGIE!
7.??????????????
Gibson, Shirley, Bova, Vinge, Cadigan...Your World and Welcome to it!
......
Re:Real advance is...Streaming Video ALL OVER (Score:3, Interesting)
Imagine the Gibsonian uses for this stuff...
1. Advertisings displays out of BRunner and Neuromancer, entire urban Downtowns morphed into 24/7 streaming video walls
This will definitly come to be - specially if producing large surfaces of e-paper is cheap enough. Then again, having moving images all around you might be a bit of a sensory overload
2. Guess, Gap, Gucci, Hillfiger, Lauren, et al incorporating streaming logo displays in clothing
Transparent clothing with smoothly moving semi-transparent areas
3. Functional PDA's that are wearable and shapeable to specialized applications
The problem here is how to input data and give commands to the PDA. An actual flexible screen is probably a no-no for most applications (imagine reading your newspaper with no hands - not very practical)
4. Rooms that can be turned in SensorySurround MM experiences with 5.1 or DTS or DolbyPro, throw in a DVD or IMAX experience, talk about "Immersive"!!
If the wide e-paper surfaces are made cheaply maybe. The problem here is either big pixels (small number of pixels - big surface) or lack of storage and bandwidth (lots of pixels, lots of data - to keep the same pixel-size, the number of pixels increases roughly with the square of the diagonal, and so does the ammount of data)
5. Genuine combat gear (ala "Predator") that can mimic the surrounding environment..the ultimate "Ghillie Suit" for snipers and SpecOps
If you can get good enough sensors to feed the screens plus color screens, then yes, this is a very realistic possibility.
6. Completely accurate training environments for many, many "environmentally difficult" training situations from fire/rescue, law enforcement, combat, flight, driving, to Wall Street Trading Floor Simulations...WHOO DOGGIE!
Preparing for high-stress situations wich happen in non-controled environments (an airplane cockpit is a controled environment) requires not only quality imaging but also other inputs such as sound, smell, temperature - imagine training fireman - some of the most inportant inputs for an experienced fireman come from the senses of smell (smoke), sound (a wooden beam starting to break) and touch (feeling burning hot air coming from a certain direction).
Digital clothes (Score:3, Funny)
...She dimmed the lights and slowly turned off her blouse.
Re:Digital clothes (Score:2)
Seriously, though. I do like the whole idea of "holodeck wallpaper", though I would tend to wonder how long it would take to become affordable.
Though I wouldn't buy an epaper book; too iffy.
/Brian
Re:Real advance is...Streaming Video ALL OVER (Score:2, Insightful)
Joe
Re:Real advance is...Streaming Video ALL OVER (Score:2)
Uhm, no. The thing would have to project different views to different perspectives
i'm not saying that the 1stGen of this will be "adaptive", it won't...as you implied, that's way beyond anything we understand now about perspective presentation
it will "mimic" specific local surrounds, so you'll take on textures, colors, backgrounds, prob with user input, this will basically be a "nighttime" technology, where a SpecOp/Sniper will select his own "localized" camo...mimic a local; tree, bush, rock, whatever
the ghillie suit is designed to break up those "regular, symmetrical shapes" (which form the base of nightime vision for humans), this will be a ghillie suit that's somewhat more adaptable to local surroundings...it will NOT adaptively morph with movement, that's still sci-fi
Re:Real advance is...Streaming Video ALL OVER (Score:3)
1. Advertisings displays out of BRunner and Neuromancer, entire urban Downtowns morphed into 24/7 streaming video walls
This will definitly come to be - specially if producing large surfaces of e-paper is cheap enough. Then again, having moving images all around you might be a bit of a sensory overload ...
In a sense, i cheated here, most downtowns are already chock a block with video, in store windows and on the tops and sides of buildings, neon, spot lighted displays and Mitsu Jumbotrons and local merchants using LED/LCD displays for their own purposes...epaper will just help organize and increase the deployment rate, as it is less intrusive than putting up a jumbotron....the sensory overload is already bad in some american cities, yes, it will get worse
2. Guess, Gap, Gucci, Hillfiger, Lauren, et al incorporating streaming logo displays in clothing
Transparent clothing with smoothly moving semi-transparent areas ....
as the costs of this stuff scales down, you will have clothing with lots of panel and not much fabric, you can use the panels to mimic fabrics and other textures; scales, skin from other creatures, your desktop wallpaper, your grandbaby's face, whatever...imagine the lawsuits that are gonna happen with this technology
3. Functional PDA's that are wearable and shapeable to specialized applications
The problem here is how to input data and give commands to the PDA. An actual flexible screen is probably a no-no for most applications (imagine reading your newspaper with no hands - not very practical)
certain people are aleady working on various types of virtual keyboards (one of these companies won a "Best of COMDEX" Award last month, the Virtutech Simics - Way Cool http://www.virtutech.com -- you could have a wrist bracelet PDA screen with the processor/hardware in a bracelet watch combo connected with wireless
4. Rooms that can be turned in SensorySurround MM experiences with 5.1 or DTS or DolbyPro, throw in a DVD or IMAX experience, talk about "Immersive"!!
If the wide e-paper surfaces are made cheaply maybe. The problem here is either big pixels (small number of pixels - big surface) or lack of storage and bandwidth (lots of pixels, lots of data - to keep the same pixel-size, the number of pixels increases roughly with the square of the diagonal, and so does the ammount of data)
Absolutely True --- a combination of Moore's Law and "spoofing" background textures they way games do now will provide some solutions here, until such environments can determine your "area of focus"..you don't need great detail in those areas behind/to the side of you
5. Genuine combat gear (ala "Predator") that can mimic the surrounding environment..the ultimate "Ghillie Suit" for snipers and SpecOps
If you can get good enough sensors to feed the screens plus color screens, then yes, this is a very realistic possibility.
and currently being worked on in the NL's, it won't be "invisibility" or anything like it, but, even in the 1stGen products it will take tactical camoflage to new levels of effectives (and drive the overhead's CRAZY)..imagine a "tarp" of this stuff covering a tank or a combat fuel depot, mimicing the surrounding terrain, with the tarp also being an emi/rfi shield???
6. Completely accurate training environments for many, many "environmentally difficult" training situations from fire/rescue, law enforcement, combat, flight, driving, to Wall Street Trading Floor Simulations...WHOO DOGGIE!
Preparing for high-stress situations wich happen in non-controled environments (an airplane cockpit is a controled environment) requires not only quality imaging but also other inputs such as sound, smell, temperature - imagine training fireman - some of the most inportant inputs for an experienced fireman come from the senses of smell (smoke), sound (a wooden beam starting to break) and touch (feeling burning hot air coming from a certain direction).
the modern commerical flight simulators already provide most of the necessary environmental factors and when you consider the military flight training sims for the Shuttle and fighter craft (i've heard the F-18 and F-117A sims are remarkably life like), we pretty much have most of this paradigm defined and explored, once epaper is delivered, it's up to the biz types to deliver viable products
in your excellent firefighting example, using the "projection" type of training rooms already in existence for law enforcement and the military, how hard would it be for a company like WED (Disney Imageneering) to add many of the olfactory and tactile elements as they do right now in their theme parks?
perfect???? of course not, but quite a bit better than what we have now....a step forward is just that
Well (Score:2)
The government has the money to create a few prototypes of anything, problem is, its only a few prototypes and until it costs less than a few billion per suit, or per cloaked aircraft, etc it wont be used in real life situations.
Thats why stealth aircrafts made in 1960-70 are being used in such small numbers even thuogh they are 30 - 40 years old and also why old aircrafts are still being used even thuogh they may be 60 years old.
256 shades of one color is not impressive (Score:2)
I'd rather have 256 diffrent colors, why the hell have 256 shades of GREY. That would totally defeat the purpose, an artist now can only use 2 colors on digital paper, and artists will be the first ones to buy this, cartoon markets will buy this and when they find out they can only use grey this will be useless.
As far as streaming movies, who wants movies in 256 shades of grey.
When they get 256 colors, then it will be decent, when they get milliosn of colors, then it will be revolutionary.
Oh really? (Score:2)
Ok, how much money would it take to create? As far as ideas i can think of a million better ideas than making some paper with 256 diffrent colors of grey.
Diffrence? They have money, I dont.
Ideas are worthless without money to create a prototype.
Possibilities are few =( (Score:2, Insightful)
The major selling point for e-paper is that it is "bendable"... eg, you can make a t-shirt out of it
Philips' e-paper will probably have a monopoly in Internet basketballs though..
could work for the holodeck... (Score:1)
-Dave
Re:could work for the holodeck... (Score:1)
Or, upon reading the AP article, what about a newspaper that you buy and then keep for a week, downloading the news each day, and getting a new one when your old paper rips or something? I'm assuming that since it is paper it must be cheap enought to be sold like paper, or at least an approximately similar price...so a video-newspaper does sound like a spiffy idea.
Or you could just slap it on a PDA and make them thinner...
-dave
Re:could work for the holodeck... (Score:2, Interesting)
You can have windowless cars that are completely safe because the inside can be plastered with Closed Circuit pictures of what's outside. Heck, imagine walking to your door and being able to look at whose standing there, without them being able to look in, because your door has a sheet of this paper on it.
Of course, take it a step further. You can folder this paper, imagine now that you mold it to someone's face, where it as a mask, and used a computer controlled face to impersonate someone.
There some picture from the developers here [philips.com]
reams and reams of vaporware (Score:1)
it really does seem like a story on e-paper or biological-monitors gets posted about every month. i imagine that it's a technology people are just really excited about, but may not be fully practical cost-wise and otherwise for a while.
sort of like fridges that scan upc's inside to make grocery lists.. or flying cars..
Paper will never be replaced... (Score:5, Funny)
The previous mental connection explains why I bust out in grins whenever someone mentions "the paperless office." The image of a pointy-haired boss beckoning pitifully from the executive washroom door comes to mind every time.
Re:Paper will never be replaced... (Score:2)
Re:Paper will never be replaced... (Score:2)
I would watch people working on their assignments. They would type the paper in, print it out to read it over, make corrections, print it again, and when they finally got done, e-mail it off to the prof.
Further Slashdot coverage (Score:3, Informative)
Do you ever get the feeling... (Score:2, Funny)
Obligatory remark (Score:1, Funny)
Cool.. at least its coming along (Score:2)
Maybe its time for a change, with this coming out then maybe we wouldnt have to give the students laptops when this would suffice, since its a source of information that can hold (I'm assuming more than just one book?? Pretty please?!?!) quite a bit of information and teachers can know that teh students are getting enough information to do their article and parents will know their kids arent looking at p0rn ( well y'know.. kids are bound to hack this thing and put p0rn on it but at least give the parents some peace of mind for a little while
So dont complain about previous articles.. jsut be happy the technology is progressing..
Moderation Points: Insightful:+1 Funny:+1 Underrated:+1 ( do I have enough points yet?
Scientific American Writeup on E-Paper (Score:2, Informative)
I'd put my money on... (Score:5, Insightful)
But neither of those, in my opinion, qualifies as "electronic paper". What distinguishes "electronic paper" from other kinds of displays is that it retains its contents even in the complete absence of power; with real "electronic paper" you only need power to change the display.
They have that! (Score:2, Informative)
Low Power-- Electronic ink is a real power miser. It displays an image even when the power is turned off and it's even legible in low light reducing the need for a backlight. This can significantly extend battery life for portable devices.
But I am also looking forward to OLED technology, because of the fast switching times and full color. Now if only they can get the lifetimes of the displays up...
Re:They have that! (Score:2)
The problem with both E-ink and Gyricon is that it's still hard to get high resolution, pixel-addressable displays. But they have a good shot--unlike all the LCD and OLE technologies, they need no active elements per pixel, since the medium itself stores the image.
Readability the big win (Score:2)
Re:Readability the big win (Score:3, Interesting)
Anyone who doesn't have permanent room for a rigid one the size they want. Most home cinema projection screens roll up. Now you don't need the projecter.
On a smaller scale, you can fit a large laptop sized screen in your pocket with your Palm sized device.
Re:Readability the big win (Score:2)
Yes, but it doesn't need to be accurately focused. Think of the difference between using an overhead projector and a flipchart. The flipchart is easier to move around, set up, and use.
And the discussion here also includes flexible displays that do glow (e.g. http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=24536&cid=266
Re:Readability the big win (Score:2, Interesting)
Maybe because it becomes unbreakable?
Maybe because it's easier to put away?
Maybe because you can now attach it to non-flat surfaces?
Think!
Dream!
Logical next step (Score:1)
The e-pencil?
Just let's not start with the white-out jokes.
Human Interface Design (Score:2, Insightful)
I have the feeling that the development will be around for a long, long time. Real paper has evolved now for more than 2,000 years (correct me if I'm wrong), electronic paper will have some catching up to do. Granted, today things develop faster, but the overall user interface of books and paper is pretty witty. Alex
Probably 5 years off... (Score:1)
--Jon
Yet another advertising medium... (Score:1)
I'm waiting for the day when I get to wipe with a McDonalds commercial.
Self-folding? (Score:1)
Oh, I want a skull gun and a pair of sights, too.
I can't make up my mind... (Score:1)
How a bout e-toilet paper? You run a current through it and it automatically incinerates your shitsmears, so it's reusable: you only ever need 1 bunch of the stuff. Now there's an improvement on an already existing product.
Re: I can't make up my mind... (Score:1)
Eh, wouldn't that burn your butthair? Then again, maybe that's better than stea^H^H^H^Hborrowing the SO's Ladyshave and having to explain why it needs a new blade every week. OK, I'm all for it. :-)
I always (Score:1)
Didn't happen did it.
Oh well, does anyone else remember that?
electronic paper (Score:3, Insightful)
Comeon, you rely BBC on technology news? (Score:2)
Slashdotors [sciam.com] want [technologyreview.com] technical [mit.edu] details [infoworld.com]!
The real reason E-paper will never take off... (Score:2)
Some questions.... (Score:2, Interesting)
How are they planning to sell this in bundles? And another question is, they say "inexpensive," but how "inexpensive" is it?
I wonder how close they are to having the same e-paper work as a scratch pad that can be written on...?
Log-jam breaker? (Score:1)
My guess: a big government purchase, probably military
yeah, I did kinda have that feeling.... (Score:3, Funny)
.... if I got a nickle for every time.....
what about burn-in...? (Score:2, Funny)
meaning to burn-in, eh?
can't help it, one more:
it can't be to hard to push the envelope with
this technology: just fold and
oo! oo! one more:
eh... and then there's the cutting edge
to be considered also...
Well, there goes one excuse...... (Score:1)
Teacher: "Let me see the grave"
Egological aspects? (Score:5, Insightful)
Since if it uses materials we only have limited amounts of, nothing is gained from an ecological perspective.
I suppose they use more lasting material(s) than wood, but which exactly?
Also, how does one recycle these papers? Do you just burn them? I guess you can just flash their memory, but due to human laziness, enormous amounts will probably be just thrown away, and there has to be a good way of taking care of this. We're, after all, talking about e-papers that may not be too uncommon if they get a breakthrough.
Re:Egological aspects? (Score:2, Insightful)
Instead of dumping some paper into you mailbox
every morning, they send you the electronic
version which is updated every day.
What is more environment friendly?
Re:Egological aspects? (Score:2)
Think outside the fireplace. The idea here is that you do not throw them away. We call it paper, but it is really a device. You keep using it until it breaks.
A good analogy to throwing epaper away after reading it is to discard your monitor after reading this slashdot post.
Thinking outside the fireplace (Score:2)
Flat bed device, or keep a small stack of them in a feeder bin to something that looks like a fax machine/printer. When you have something to "print" it prints it on the epaper.
2) The "e-paper" might be light and thin, but a wireless networked computer isn't.
The epaper itself has no electronics, only small pixel balls that get rotated to make pictures/text. The rotating is done by an external device. The epaper keeps the balls positioned without requiring electronics.
3) What happens when it gets dirty?
What happens when your laptop screen gets dirty? You wipe it clean.
4) Breaks?
Throw it away and get a new one.
5) Oh, and what about batteries?
No batteries or plugs for the paper itself. See #2 above.
6) They're not exactly environmentally-friendly.
What do you mean?
reduce is the key here... (Score:2)
Follow the money... (Score:2)
Once it becomes reliable and relatively cheap to produce (compared to the dead-tree stuff plus its recurring production and distribution costs), publishers of all stripes will be all over this, mark my words. Eliminating most of those recurring production and distribution costs will drive the adoption of ePaper by publishers (consumers won't pull this, except by choosing lower costs of data delivery). Here's my off the cuff analysis of how the markets will treat this new medium (and I will welcome all comments):
1) Ephemeral publishers - all newspapers, plus the major consumer networks (NBC, ABC, CBS, AOL/TW, FOX, Sky, etc.) will be falling all over each other to offer X pages of ePaper to subscribers, where the cost of the blank "product" will be _inversely_ proportional on a per-page basis to the number of ePages purchased initially (the rationale here will be that the more ePages you buy, the more ads they get to winkle into your "viewing experience" every few hours or each day). Just economics, actually.
2) Periodical publishers - i.e., magazines, see above for the consumer cost and rationale for it. A twist here if one wants a hard copy of an issue, but I'm sure it will be done.
3) Book publishers - limited adoption; when I buy a book I want to own it, dammit. As a consumer of books, I certainly don't want that book I bought to disappear when I buy another one. Here, ePaper will be limited to perusal before purchase of the real thing (bye bye, Borders etc. coffee-shops), but this might stimulate the higher value online presentation of books (cover art, reviews, et al - Amazon, are you listening?). A tricky dimension, verging on the periodical model: Do you want to lease a book for a month? Do you also want an option to buy the real paper version eventually? The marketing models for this will be trial and error (mostly error) initially, but they all _will_ get done.
ePaper is coming, it would seem. One can mourn the Library of Alexandria (lost in a great fire over two thousand years ago), silently revere the generations of medieval monks who doggedly copied the learned manuscripts on parchment, celebrate the invention of the printing press, deplore the recent debasement of popular "information" by the major networks (those mass-media "entertainment" conglomerates), and be wary of this new medium (I will). But maybe that's just my own double-plus-ungood outlook.
Re:Follow the money... (Score:2, Funny)
Reasons why paper replacements are still far away (Score:5, Informative)
First off, paper is easily portable and fairly robust. Moreover, most people prefer to read from paper rather than from screen. This is due to the fact that conventional screens are just tiring for the eyes.
Also, paper is easy to use, and you can just write on printed paper and make marks in all the colours you have available to you. Easy stuff!
Cost is also an issue, e-paper is still way too expensive. Normal paper is cheap and cheerful.
While the reusability of e-paper is great, it's unclear for publishers how to create a good business model from it. People will be much more prone to copy e-books than normal books (ever seen anybody read a book on photocopied sheets of paper?) Thus, a good business model needs to deal with people copying things.
And people just like to hold some physical publication in their hands. Books, magazines, newspapers, printed paper just feels more real.
And finally, some documents need to be physical to have legal status.
These are all reasons why, even when technology wise e-paper is mature, society will not be leaping to accept it.
Re: Robust (Score:2)
I'll fight this tooth and nail (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't want to be permanently attached to cell phones and hand-helds. I keep my to-do list on a little scrap of paper, that neatly fits into my pocket. At the end of the day, it's dutifully thrown into the trash bin. It works just as well as any $160 dollar device, and it never breaks down or crashes. Heck, it's not even bulky like those personal organizers.
Re:I'll fight this tooth and nail (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I'll fight this tooth and nail (Score:2)
Why are we so opposed to paper?
I don't think that we (you and I, at least, maybe others) are opposed to paper. It has a lot of advantages: very high resolution, doesn't need a power supply, cheap, for the most part durable, doesn't require a license to re-read, you can make margin notes, and (here's the kicker, I believe) very high standards exist and are commonly upheld for things like typography, typesetting, spelling, and indexing.
"Electronic paper" is mostly an Upper Managment Fantasy. Presidents and CEOs and COOs hope to license content per-viewing, and they have noticed what the record industry does when it changes formats - the record industry ditches unprofitable back catalog. Also, in a new medium, people will expect less. On-line documentation, as an example, is usually not spell-checked, or paginated, and neither table of contents nor index is customary. Corporate Upper Management doesn't want to pay anyone but the janitor and themselves, so they want to ditch those pesky proofreaders, typesetters and most of all those squirrely indexers.
Hemp didn't fly, but this might. (Score:2, Informative)
"Do you ever get the feeling that electronic paper is going to be just around the corner for a long, long time?"
It is a little known fact that Marijuana is illegal because Hemp threatened to ruin the textile industry. Indeed, the 'Documentary' "Reefer Madness" [amazon.com] was Government funded at the insistance of textile lobbyists, and is widely attributed as the FUD that lead the public to vote the way they did (read the reviews on Amazon to see a few people review the flick who know this, and many more who don't.) At first I was worried something like this might happen with e-paper, until I realized one important fact
While the Hemp industry never existed, and therefore couldn't fight back against the FUD, high technology companies have even deeper pockets than the textile industry, and more political connections as well. So this probably will take off eventually, much to the chagrin of the old boys network in the textile industry. I like to think of it as a bit of Karma that has been a long time coming!
Now if we could only educate the public about the truth behind Marijuana's illegality
Re:Hemp didn't fly, but this might. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Hemp didn't fly, but this might. (Score:2)
No way. Hemp just isn't that good a material. Sailing ships used to use hemp rope, but it rots from the inside, looking good until it breaks. It was phased out around the time Moby Dick was written. That's why you won't find hemp rope at the boat supply store. If you need strength, synthetics are far better, and if you want comfort, cotton has a better "hand", or feel.
I notice that the hemp enthusiasts don't also promote jute [jute.com], sisal [sisal-style.com], and manila, similar coarse fibres which were also major textile materials a century ago. Wonder why.
Re:Hemp didn't fly, but this might. (Score:2)
" That's why you won't find hemp rope at the boat supply store. If you need strength, synthetics are far better, and if you want comfort, cotton has a better "hand", or feel."
Think 1930s here!!! You won't find Hemp rope because synthetics are better in 2001, and you might not have in the 1930s either, but for a very different reason to be sure. But I actually also meant paper, since that is the subject of this whole thing, and I certainly wouldn't want to be off-topic! Perhaps paper isn't a 'textile', but I am thinking it is.
Also, I wasn't promoting Hemp, merely pointing out how industries can use undue influence to stop a good idea, and then concluding that it wasn't likely to happen here because the bullies of the 1930s are the scared children on the run in 2001.
"Wonder why."
Don't tell me what to do 8^}
E-Paper could bring about social injustice (Score:3, Interesting)
The document about the right to read [gnu.org] really applies here whether you agree with it or not.
E-paper should go the way of E-toilet paper....
flush it down the toilet.
Re:E-Paper could bring about social injustice (Score:2)
Guess what? The poor are very rarely that poor that they have *nothing*. E-paper becoming standard sort of implies that it will also become exceedingly cheap. No reason why a person couldn't "check out" an e-book from the library just as easily as they could a dead tree version.
Then again, blaming the technology and not the implementation is one way to ensure that the sky is always falling...
It's not quite like your thinking... (Score:2, Interesting)
E-Paper will not fly (Score:3, Funny)
1. It was not very reusable. After making one paper airplane, the creases remained very pronounced and at some folds it looked a little cracked.
2. The airplanes I made did not fly very far or well. The material is both heavy and limp.
I cannot imagine ever switching to E-Paper until it is much lighter and stiffer.
1984? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:1984? (Score:2, Insightful)
And all that to the side, it would be impractical to change over record to e-paper from the cost alone. That's assuming most records were in paper form - which they're not. Most of them are already in electronic already and in a database.
Nothing is immutable, and it never will be. So relax and enjoy e-paper.
Re:1984? (Score:2)
So if the reference is so obligatory, how come I'm the first of several hundred (at least those at >=1) to make it? Yes there are advantages and yes paper can be modified, destroyed or replaced. But think how much easier it when when it's dynamic. Just as hi-res graphics and powerfuil computers are destroying the probative nature of photographs, this trechnology undermines paper evidence. And no, I'm not a Luddite, but I do wonder where we're headed.
Irony (Score:2)
Re:It's easy. (Score:2)
No, all you can be sure of is that someone with access to the private key you think belongs to the author has signed it. The record companies have used their oligopoly power to make all but the most famous and powerful sign away the rights to their music. If this catches on in other branches of the publishing world, the publishers, not the authors, would have the signing keys. Or the publishers would have a contract with the authors requiring the authors to sign whatever the publishers dictate. There are solutions, but technology by itself isn't necessarily it.
What I really wanna see... (Score:2, Interesting)
I guess I want to see something like those "note pads" on star trek TNG....
Re:What I really wanna see... (Score:2)
The only difference between what you're talking about and my PalmPilot is that your idea would be more expensive, but otherwise essentially identical. Though admittedly an epaper screen would be easier to read...
/Brian
ray guns, geodesic domes (Score:2)
Once I mentioned Lisp to a process engineer, and he said: "Just like gallium arsenide! It's the technology of the future, and it always will be!"
Casinos (Score:3, Informative)
Anyway, slot machines are how whoever pulls this off first is going to recoup their R&D investment. You'd be amazed how many of the strips that go around the wheels they seem to need!
Once the processes are developed and the initial ramp-up is done, the prices should fall pretty fast.
Re:First Post (Score:3, Insightful)
Regardless if E-paper really is just arround the corner or not, I'm looking forward to it as I think it has a lot of potential. And yes, it will happen in our lifetimes.