The Death of E-Readers Is All Your Fault

[kennyc]

Ummm, identical twins genome is identical.

[Kirtai]

Originally Posted by Edward M. Grant

Colour on e-readers is insignificant compared to having an e-reader or not having one. It's like the difference between DVD, Blu-Ray and VHS... almost no-one prefers VHS, but if you already have a movie on DVD the Blu-Ray just looks a bit better.

And, for those of us who mostly read fiction, colour is almost irrelevant.

That's the current situation. It wouldn't surprise me if things change as ebooks become the preferred format. Since colour and graphics will no longer cause massive increases in marginal costs, I expect to see a lot more experiments with them.

BTW, have you ever seen a japanese light novel? Those look like they'd suit colour ereaders and visual novels may do well on colour epub3 readers.

[kennyc]

But what about those with synthesia? Those poor people!

[5thWiggle]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

And no display tech will ever be free of "defects".
Not even the Sony Playstation 23 with graaphics pumped straight to the virtual cortex.

The electrodes on my Playstation 23 give me ichy scalp rash...

[kennyc]

We're all just a computer simulation anyway.... meh!

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Why do you assume that newer versions of color e-ink will not have better resolution or other improvements? Besides, even the first color e-ink's resolution is not 800x600, but still 1600x1200. That myth you keep spreading has been debunked right here on this site 100 times or more. The filter does not affect text resolution.

Colors are murky and look rather faded unless you have very strong lights, that is correct.

The resolution is 800x600 because it takes multiple capsules to make a single color. Thus, the resolution is lowered.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by charmian

On the other hand, advances in reflective tech do not necessarily spell the survival of the dedicated e-reader. Think about what if Pixel Qi improved its tech.

Pixel Qi is dead. So is any other alternate tech to eInk and LCD. All those wonderful announcements at CES have come to nothing. Until we get actual products using these alternate screen technologies, I'll consider them non-existent. Too many promises with nothing to show for it.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Ummm, identical twins genome is identical.

Possible, but not guaranteed.
They start identical, but are then subject to random mutations.
And with identical female twins, a different X chromosome could be activated in each cell, meaning their active genome would be different.


http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...-not-identical
http://www.livescience.com/24694-ide...identical.html

[mbovenka]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

The resolution is 800x600 because it takes multiple capsules to make a single color. Thus, the resolution is lowered.

Yep. To quote E Ink itself:

"An E Ink Triton Module is comprised of a TFT backplane, Ink layer, Color Filter layer and Protective Sheet. E Ink offers a 9.68" Triton color module as a standard size, with 800x600 color pixel resolution, 16 levels of grayscale and 4096 colors."

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Ummm, identical twins genome is identical.

No. If you go base pair by base pair you find differences and those variances are the reason the original blastocyst splits and you get twins.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

Possible, but not guaranteed.
They start identical, but are then subject to random mutations.
And with identical female twins, a different X chromosome could be activated in each cell, meaning their active genome would be different.


http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...-not-identical
http://www.livescience.com/24694-ide...identical.html

Mutations are not the genome they are mutations. That is an environmental effect. Identical twins have identical genomes.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

No. If you go base pair by base pair you find differences and those variances are the reason the original blastocyst splits and you get twins.

Link please. I don't believe this because they are the same before they split.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Mutations are not the genome they are mutations.

What do you think the mutations mutate?

That is an environmental effect. Identical twins have identical genomes.

I've posted links reporting on two scientific reports which disagree with you.
I think I'll believe Scientific American over 'some guy on the internet'.

From the more recent link:

To find out how often these mutations occur in early development, Li and her colleagues studied the genomes of 92 pairs of identical twins and searched hundreds of thousands of sites in their genomes for differences between twins in base pairs, which are represented by letters that make up DNA. For instance, one twin may carry an A at one point while another carries a C. The researchers could only detect differences that would occur very early in fetal development and would show up in most cells in the body.

They then calculated the frequency with which these mutations occurred. Only two sets of twins had such mutations, which translates to a DNA change occurring once for every 10 million to 10 billion bases that are copied every time a cell divides. While that may seem like a high accuracy rate, cells in the body divide trillions of times. So that would mean an average twin pair carries 359 genetic differences that occurred early in development.

[kennyc]

What I'm saying is that identical twins start with the same genome. If you claim something different you are welcome to provide proof. You are just being argumentative and cantankerous as usual.

The conclusion from the first article:

The differences between identical twins increase as they age, because environmentally triggered changes accumulate. But twins can also begin their lives with differences, according to Bruder's study, and that calls into question their very name.

"Maybe we shouldn't call them identical twins," Harvard's Bieber says. "We should call them 'one-egg twins.'"

and from the second:

SAN FRANCISCO – Identical twins may not be so identical after all. Even though identical twins supposedly share all of their DNA, they acquire hundreds of genetic changes early in development that could set them on different paths, according to new research.

bolding mine

[kennyc]

Everything mutates. It's the way DNA works. Wanna go back and edit your post some more?