Having been a relatively early adopter of electronic books, I have been debating whether to get an Amazon Kindle for some time. It seemed like a really cool way of having wireless access to Amazon’s books, periodicals and so forth. The prices of the electronic versions are lower than the printed variety – still way too expensive for what they really are, but a bit cheaper.

The Kindle, being just another glorified electronic reader device was always much too expensive. I waited until the bigger Kindle DX came out and Amazon lowered the price of the 2^nd generation Kindle to $299. Still overpriced, but better that before.

Amazon claims that Kindle “Reads like real paper; now boasts 16 shades of gray for clear text and even crisper images” and “Utilizing the latest in electronic-ink display technology, Kindle provides a crisp black-and-white 6″ screen with the same appearance and readability of printed paper. Sharp and natural with no glare or backlight, reading on Kindle is nothing like reading from a computer screen. Those who see it for the first time always do a double-take. The screen works using ink, just like books and newspapers, but displays the ink particles electronically. And unlike a laptop or smart phone, Kindle never gets warm so you can comfortably read as long as you like. “

How does that translate to real life? You might ask. The very first impression after I unpacked the Kindle, which similarly to many Apple products was packed in a fancy series of boxes, seemingly to make it harder to unpack and then re-pack when the unit needed to be returned, was that it was a flimsy-looking and feeling piece of white plastic.

Since the battery was drained, I plugged it in according to instructions and looked at it coming to life. The supposedly “paper-like” screen looked grey/brown, instead of white, or at least off-white. The “ink just like books and newspapers” was not nearly dark enough to provide easy reading contrast on the dirty grey background. The only possible advantage that I could see to this “electronic paper” concept was much longer battery life, when compared to a device with a backlit screen. As it turns out, a Pocket PC, or the iPhone, or any other device with a backlit screen is much, much easier on the eyes than Kindle’s “electronic paper”. I know, because I read dozens of books on a smallish Pocket PC, which worked fine, even with a version of Windows, but of course the battery life was atrocious because of the nice, sharp backlit screen. I suppose that even some of the better phone screens would provide a better reading experience than the low-contrast Kindle.

I have since heard that the contrast of the Kindle screen can vary widely from unit to unit. Not sure about that, since I don’t intend to buy and return these gizmos in the hope that the next will be better than the last.

Another beef is with that famed connectivity. Amazon is using a part of Sprint’s wireless spectrum, calling it the “Whispernet”. As it happens, I couldn’t get a signal at home when I had a Sprint cell phone (just as I cannot use my AT&T cell phone at home) and Whispernet was no different. After charging the Kindle battery, I had to jump in the car and drive about a mile away to be able to register the Kindle with Amazon and peruse their Kindle store. I did buy one book, just to see how the system worked and then plopped myself down on the couch and tried to read it. After the first, eight-page chapter I came to the conclusion that I don’t really want to strain my eyes on that substandard screen. Went to the very limited “settings” menu and re-read the entire and much too long PDF “Kindle Guide” and found that it is easy to change the font size, but impossible to adjust the contrast.

To make a long story short: The Kindle is already making its way back to Amazon by UPS. And they better refund my entire purchase price without any deductions. After all, it was them who misrepresented the “easy reading” quality of the Kindle screen and it was I who was inconvenienced the most by the whole episode. Not recommended, unless you have masochistic tendencies.

I really hope that sometime soon a viable, well-designed and less expensive “reading appliance” will become available. Until that time, I guess I’ll have to stick to real paper and computer-type screens.

____________________________________________________________________________________________

Update, August 10, 2009: Went to the Sony Style store and perused their Sony Reader offerings in person. Here you can actually touch, feel and see the products. Overall, the image quality, the overall looks, with the metal, rather than plastics cases were much better than the Kindle.

Opted not to get the touch screen model, because the extra layer of glass, or plastic, or whatever they use for the screen, noticeably deteriorated the image quality. Picked up the Sony Reader 505 model and I’m happy to report that it is a great device.

Technorati Tags: Amazon Kindle, hate, love, low contrast, returned, screen

Would the fact that we are having summer-like temperatures in October, hardly any snow in places winter, after winter, along with an extreme drought and the melting ice caps be enough? Or maybe the well-deserved Nobel Peace Prize awarded  to IPCC and Al Gore?I wonder if the happily polluting Chinese and Indian economies, or the millions of SUV-driving Americans would agree that the present bout of global warming is at least partly caused by humans? According to a very recent Greenpeace report just three of China’s largest power companies created more greenhouse gas emissions last year than the entire United Kingdom.

Why is there so much resistance by some to explore and implement alternative energy sources, such as solar, wind, geothermal, wave and so forth? Could it be that certain fossil fuel lobbies are exerting way too much influence upon our decision making?

Some say that about 1,000 years ago the Vikings encountered a “Green Land” in Greenland and that the climate fluctuations are nothing new and are simply what Mother Nature does, even without our input.

That’s at least partly true, with an important caveat: The present warming trend is proceeding much faster than all of the previous ones and unless we help Mother Nature by very quickly reducing the emissions that we are so enthusiastically creating and pumping into the atmosphere, there’s a distinct and frightening possibility that unlike the previous Earth cooling and warming episodes, the present trend might become simply irreversible.

Don’t let the skeptics convince you that humans do not have a role in global warming. Those could very well be the same “geniuses”, which have in fact voted for the neocons during the 2004 U.S. presidential election.

Look around you. At the millions of Hummers, Yukon XL’s, Ford Excursions, Chevy Suburbans, or the totally ludicrous new crop of huge pick-up trucks from Ford, GM and Chrysler. These enormous, badly designed, gas-guzzling monstrosities not only “process” and emit much more pollutants than a reasonably-sized vehicle, but when their sheer size is taken into consideration, their manufacture uses up considerably more raw materials, energy and produces more carbon emissions that it should.

And yes! Driving those ridiculous vehicles IS ecologically incorrect in every possible way. In addition, it is highly doubtful that anyone, who buys that kind of a vehicle, without a supporting reason, such as: work, owning a farm, horses, etc. is an enlightened, and/or educated person. In short: I wouldn’t feel guilty about prominently showing the middle finger to some drivers of humongous SUV’s, who use them simply to haul groceries, kids, commuting, or going to the movies. What a price for “keeping up with the Joneses”!

I have test-driven some of these vehicles. Frankly, I hate the design, the handling and the overall feel and unless someone has an overpowering and uncontrollable urge to move a refrigerator, I cannot imagine any person in his right mind, who would want to have, or drive a crappy vehicle of that sort.

Also, why does almost everybody in the U.S. insist on driving cars with automatic transmissions? I would not even CONSIDER a vehicle, unless it had a nice manual tranny.

I suppose that automatics do make sense in the case of people, who are handicapped, or infirm, but for normal driving?! Come on! Is everyone out there retarded, or terminally lazy? I know that getting stuck in traffic and commuting are not much fun, but have you all forgotten the joy of driving and efficiently shifting through the gears? The manual transmissions are better in practically every conceivable way in comparison to automatics.

In addition – despite the claims of the manufacturers – we could save millions of gallons of fuel EVERY DAY, if people were smart enough and not too lazy to drive “normal” cars.

We all can help. By influencing politicians, by realizing that the new and profitable ethanol fuels are not the solution, but are quickly becoming a part of the problem, by installing and using energy efficient bulbs, driving less, cycling more and walking.

Not using drinking water in plastic bottles would be helpful in many ways. Billions of plastic containers are laying around everywhere. Transporting tap, or even spring water from faraway places uses huge amounts of energy and generates more pollution. Get a water filter and reusable bottles.

Reducing the catastrophic epidemic of obesity is also a prime consideration. Most of the fat people become that way not only because of lack of exercise, but also because they keep eating crap, the sort of “food” that our processed food industry has been feeding us for at least two generations. High fructose corn syrup seems to be present in most U.S. non-alcoholic beverages. Avoid it like the plague!

Most of our foods here have been adulterated in some way by now. The industry has either added some chemicals, or taken away some natural and often healthy ingredients. At the very least, our food supply has been contaminated to some degree by pesticides, herbicides, antibiotics and hormones.

Haven’t you noticed that most obese people drink “diet” drinks? Doesn’t that tell you something? Why do you think that there are so many diabetics as of late? While sugar might not be the healthiest substance around, it is still much better than corn syrup, Aspartame, or Nutrasweet. Take note!

I realize that finding unadulterated food has become very difficult, but it is not impossible. Try harder and buy from local producers and farmers. Your body and Mother Nature will thank you.

Technorati Tags: conservation, Environment, global warming, obesity, pollution

This might not be strictly a political topic, but seeing just about everybody with their plastic bottles of water drives me nuts! Some of the information in this article has been procured from some really disturbing research, conducted by the Sierra Club.

To begin with, the billions of plastic bottles, laying around almost everywhere are bad enough. How about transporting them sometimes for thousands of miles?  The worldwide bottled water sales estimates range from $50 to $100 billion per year, with the market expanding at an annual rate of 7 percent, so there is no doubt that the bottled water is big business. But it is also costly, wasteful, and distracts from a much more important issue of public health: the construction and maintenance of safe municipal water systems.

Every year about 1.5 million tons of plastic go into manufacturing water bottles for the global market, using processes that release toxics such as nickel, ethyl benzene, ethylene oxide and benzene. In the U.S. alone 1.5 million barrels of oil are consumed in making the bottles. Most bottles end up in landfills, adding to the landfill crisis.

Even with the record high U.S. gasoline prices, the cost of gasoline is not really higher than that of bottled water, purchased in those small, plastic bottles and the cost of bottled water is up to 1,000 times higher than that of tap water.

It’s an amazing new fad, one of the most successful advertising hypes in recent history. Advertising for bottled water suggests that drinking water from plastic bottles can make you thin, sexy, healthy, affluent, and environmentally responsible. Water bottles have become a fashion accessory, like cell phones, MP3 players, Crocks and flip flops.

Giant multinational companies like Nestle, Coke, and Pepsi are making a fortune on bottled water.

In Michigan, Nestle received $9.6 million in tax breaks to site their Ice Mountain bottled water plant in Mecosta County. Yet in Detroit more than 20,000 families have had their water shut off because of inability to pay their water bills when the state refused to provide a subsidy.

Many people think bottled water is safer than tap water. There is no such guarantee. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has strict water quality standards for tap water, but the EPA does not oversee bottled water. Bottled water sold across state lines is regulated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The FDA interprets EPA clean drinking water regulations and applies them selectively to bottled water. While the FDA requires water sources to be “inspected, sampled, analyzed and approved,” it only has one inspector so the industry does the inspecting. Nor do the FDA regulations prevent bottling companies from drawing water next to industrial sites, underground storage tanks, or dumps.

In California, an independent lab tested for hundreds of different chemicals in 38 brands of California bottled water. Two samples had arsenic contamination, six had chemical byproducts of chlorination, and six had measurable levels of the toxic chemical toluene.

There’s a simple alternative to bottled water: buy a stainless steel, or the excellent, coated aluminum SIGG water bottle, and use it. I had my SIGG bottles for several years now. They are a bit banged up, but are still solid and safe and much better in every way than plastic bottles.

SIGG bottles are almost indestructible and coated inside with an impervious – to almost anything coating, which does not leach chemicals. Yes, they are more expensive than plastic, but will also last for decades. Having a dented, but perfectly functional water bottle is a badge of honor of sorts, I guess…

Non-toxic, baked-on inner lining is certified by an independent institute (Nehring, Germany) and exceeds FDA requirements. Its is a water-based, not petroleum (plastic) lining.

SIGG bottles are part of the permanent Design Collection at the Museum of Modern Art. These bottles are functional works of art.

With SIGG you get exacting Swiss design, quality and engineering. Seamless construction extruded from a single piece of pure (99.5%) aluminum makes SIGG bottles virtually indestructible.

We are not getting a red cent from SIGG for promoting their products. We simply feel that they are not only quality products, but also an environmentally-friendly alternative.

As plastic degrades through aging and wear & tear of washing, leaching of potentially harmful chemicals increases.

If you don’t like the way your local tap water tastes, inexpensive carbon filters will turn most tap water sparkling fresh at a fraction of bottled water’s cost. I have been using a filter pitcher at home. It works well, as long as you keep it clean and change the filters regularly and the truth is that I haven’t bought a single plastic water bottle in quite some time.

You can find more information on this subject at Food&Water Watch

Technorati Tags: bottled water, chemical, Environment, garbage, hoax, plastic, plastic bottles, profits

There is no shortage of horror stories from China about dried-up rivers, with bridges crossing wide expanses of sand and dirt, sand storms hitting Beijing from the once lush and now destroyed Mongolian grasslands, emerald green, chemical-laden lakes, city skylines hidden by ever-present smog. I guess there’s a lot to be proud of.

Enjoy this video from The Onion. After all, only one country can be the world’s biggest polluter at any one given time.

China Celebrates Its Status As World’s Number One Air Polluter

Technorati Tags: china, pollution

Not that recent, but still current to a degree, slightly different, more light-hearted, but still scary take on Goldman Sachs.

I particularly like the very last line of this video: “A doctor named Goldman squeezes your sack”.

Enjoy!

Technorati Tags: goldman sachs, investment firms