A $20 8-Bit Wikipedia Reader For Your TV

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

A $20 8-Bit Wikipedia Reader For Your TV

Posted by timothy on Thursday July 29, 2010 @07:00AM from the thought-experiments-welcome dept.

An anonymous reader writes with this excerpt from Wired about another entry in the ongoing quest for low-tech-high-tech educational tools to take advantage of distributed knowledge: "The Humane Reader, a device designed by computer consultant Braddock Gaskill, takes two 8-bit microcontrollers and packages them in a 'classic style console' that connects to a TV. The device includes an optional keyboard, a micro-SD Card reader and a composite video output. It uses a standard micro-USB cellphone charger for power. In all, it can hold the equivalent of 5,000 books, including an offline version of Wikipedia, and requires no internet connection. The Reader will cost $20 when 10,000 or more of it are manufactured. Without that kind of volume, each Reader will cost about $35."

167 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Blurry text by wjousts · 2010-07-29 07:03 · Score: 3, Insightful

I can't imagine that the audience this is aimed at is likely to own an HDTV, so presumably they'll be trying to read masses of blurry text on an older SDTV. Sounds like fun.
1. Re:Blurry text by Just_Say_Duhhh · 2010-07-29 07:05 · Score: 1
  
  Can I use it just until I need glasses?
  
  --
  I need trepanation like I need a hole in the head.
2. Re:Blurry text by jrmcferren · 2010-07-29 07:06 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  The answers are simple, if the country uses SECAM that isn't a problem usually, if they use NTSC or PAL, simply turn off the chroma signal or use 40 columns.
  
  --
  sudo mod me up
3. Re:Blurry text by Capt.DrumkenBum · 2010-07-29 07:18 · Score: 1
  
  My first 3 computers hooked up to an old SDTV. In fact as I recall it was a Black & White TV.
  Now get off my lawn!
  
  --
  If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
4. Re:Blurry text by drHirudo · 2010-07-29 07:23 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Reading from the screen is not hard. Even on old TV sets. Teletext exists since ages and nobody complains about it being unreadable. In fact in today technological society there are already more people reading more from screens of some kind, than from paper. With such cheap device as the one in the article, the ratio of people reading from screen versus the people reading from paper will increase even more in favour of the ones readering from screen.
5. Re:Blurry text by Capt.DrumkenBum · 2010-07-29 07:24 · Score: 1
  
  I don't usually talk to myself, but:
  1. Timex Sinclair 1000
  2. TRS-80 Color Computer 2
  3. TRS-80 Color Computer 3
  
  --
  If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
6. Re:Blurry text by CohibaVancouver · 2010-07-29 07:25 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  so presumably they'll be trying to read masses of blurry text on an older SDTV.
  Until the "IBM PC" came along, most of us hooked our home computers to our televisions:
  
  http://www.vintagecomputer.net/apple/appleII/appleII_display_graph.jpg
  
  We wrote BASIC programs, played ZORK, and labouriously keyed in source code printed in the likes of "Creative Computing." Today, none of us are blind. Well, some of us are. But likely for other reasons than reading text on an SDTV.
  
  Now get off my lawn.
7. Re:Blurry text by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-29 07:35 · Score: 0
  
  It's not going to be unreadable by any means -- doesn't anyone else remember C64s and even earlier machines using TVs as monitors? -- but you'll get a maximum horizontal resolution of about 4-500 pixels and a vertical of 480 interlaced (NTSC) or 520ish interlaced (PAL).
  That's pretty much on par with a low-end featurephone, and cellphones (of some sort -- mostly dumbphones, right now) are even more widespread than TVs. So while there may be a legitimate market for this now, I expect it'll be all but gone within 5 years, as more of those dumbphones are replaced by featurephones.
8. Re:Blurry text by Jason+Levine · 2010-07-29 07:36 · Score: 1
  
  I've used my Nintendo Wii on my SD TV to browse websites and the text isn't blurry. They should be able to pull off clear text even if the TV isn't high-definition.
  
  --
  My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
9. Re:Blurry text by Dogtanian · 2010-07-29 07:37 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  My first 3 computers hooked up to an old SDTV. In fact as I recall it was a Black & White TV.
  But did you tie an onion to your belt? ;-)
  
  I don't usually talk to myself, but:
  1. Timex Sinclair 1000
  2. TRS-80 Color Computer 2
  3. TRS-80 Color Computer 3
  
  Oh, the irony! :-)
  
  Er, I can't talk, given that the first computer I used was a ZX81 (i.e. UK version of the TS-1000), and the first three machines I used were connected to black and white tellies, including my Amiga at one point(!)
  
  --
  "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
10. Re:Blurry text by sourcerror · 2010-07-29 07:40 · Score: 1
  
  It should be noted however that most TV sets have a 200% magnification option for Teletext for a reason.
11. Re:Blurry text by Dogtanian · 2010-07-29 07:41 · Score: 1
  
  Teletext exists since ages and nobody complains about it being unreadable.
  People aren't trying to read Wikipedia on it though. And if people didn't complain about it in the past, it's because there was nothing better (it was good for the time, but still limited compared to (e.g.) a newspaper). And if people don't complain now, it's probably because very few people use it. The operator of the UK's commercial Teletext service illegally ditched it last year (in breach of their license) because it wasn't making them money any more.
  
  Anyway, Teletext's 40 columns is very narrow by modern standards, and would spread the average article over countless pages. Even 80 columns is pretty small by today's standards, and that's bordering on unpleasant to read on an old-style TV.
  
  --
  "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
12. Re:Blurry text by blincoln · 2010-07-29 07:43 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  We wrote BASIC programs, played ZORK, and labouriously keyed in source code printed in the likes of "Creative Computing." Today, none of us are blind.
  While this is true, the text back in those days was pretty barebones. I couldn't find a screenshot of what the TV output looks like from this device. Is it that same sort of old-school no-frills monospaced font with 40 (or 80 at most) characters per line? Or is it an attempt to shoehorn something with more modern formatting onto a TV via composite signal? I set up a Linux PC as a classic game emulator a year ago, and via composite I had to make the font *much* larger than on my old Apple IIe for it to be readable on a TV connected via composite. I think it was something like 25-30 characters per line. With S-Video it was better, but I would only assume that maybe 10-25% more characters could be squeezed onto each line.
  
  --
  "...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
13. Re:Blurry text by westlake · 2010-07-29 07:53 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  In fact in today technological society there are already more people reading more from screens of some kind, than from paper.
  Facts like these could stand a little batter anchorage.
  Teletext exists since ages and nobody complains about it being unreadable.
  They might, if all they had to go on were the screen shots in the Wikipedia. Teletext
14. Re:Blurry text by MoeDumb · 2010-07-29 08:06 · Score: 1
  
  Perfect! The inventor can sell ad space to Lenscrafters.
  
  --
  Mod Me Up. You'll make a grown man cry.
15. Re:Blurry text by Gilmoure · 2010-07-29 08:21 · Score: 1
  
  Ti-99/4a (with 16k RAM!)
  I still have it in it's box with all the manuals and packaging. I figure now's the time to bring it out and show the kidlet (9 years old) what computing used to be. Wish I still have the modem with handset couple. Not that I have any phones it could attach to...
  
  --
  I drank what? -- Socrates
16. Re:Blurry text by GWBasic · 2010-07-29 09:39 · Score: 1
  
  Until the "IBM PC" came along, most of us hooked our home computers to our televisions:
  The early IBM PCs also could be hooked to TVs. For games, this was preferable because a lot of games exploited "bugs" in the NTSC encoding chip, thus allowing them to render more then 4 colors.
  
  --
  No, I will not work for your startup
17. Re:Blurry text by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-29 09:50 · Score: 0
  
  You called it, about 40 characters per line on the old Vic20 if I'm not mistaken, with very simple block, equally-sized and spaced letters. I imagine reading a Wikipedia article at that level of zoom would be brutal to say the least.
18. Re:Blurry text by CohibaVancouver · 2010-07-29 10:08 · Score: 1
  
  about 40 characters per line on the old Vic20
  The Vic 20 supported 22 columns and 23 rows of 8-by-8-pixel characters. This wasn't however due to TV limitations - It was done that way so the Vic could use a very inexpensive display chipset.
  
  The Vic 20's successor, the Commodore 64, supported 40 columns, which, as you say, was pretty much the max for these TV displays.
19. Re:Blurry text by stillnotelf · 2010-07-29 10:19 · Score: 1
  
  I did the reverse of this: I grew up playing NES and Genesis games (and occasionally watching TV) on a color computer monitor seconded from a computer of my dad's that had died...
20. Re:Blurry text by evilviper · 2010-07-29 10:59 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Reading from the screen is not hard. Even on old TV sets.
  Yes. Yes it is. Interlacing is BAD. VGA-resolution is bad. No magic will fix that.
  
  Teletext exists since ages and nobody complains about it being unreadable.
  Teletext takes up, what, 1/5th of the screen for TWO LINES of text? Yeah, at those sizes, anybody can read them. Trying to read a lengthy document like that proves VERY cumbersome. Non-stop scrolling to the next few lines, and an exhausting experience as your eyes have to travel vastly further than they should, or would on a decent monitor, or book page.
  Yeah, text as 24x80 is readable, but even them, you don't want to be subjected to it, if you have a choice.
  
  --
  Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
21. Re:Blurry text by The+Archon+V2.0 · 2010-07-29 12:33 · Score: 1
  
  People aren't trying to read Wikipedia on it though. And if people didn't complain about it in the past, it's because there was nothing better
  But if it's meant for developing nations, they may well NOT have anything better.
22. Re:Blurry text by Nethead · 2010-07-29 12:40 · Score: 1
  
  And there was a program to make the c64 do 80 char per line. That made it mostly unreadable unless you had the 1702 video monitor (which had what we would today call S-video.)
  Even at 40 chars/line the SX-64 (color luggable) it was hard to tell the difference between 0, O, 8, 6 & G. So much so that I ended up reworking the font on mine and burning a new EPROM for it.
  
  --
  -- I have a private email server in my basement.
23. Re:Blurry text by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-29 13:10 · Score: 0
  
  That's a good point. Home computers in the day displayed very little text. Timex Sinclair, 32 col x 24 row; Commodore 64, 40 col x 24 row; VIC 20, 22 col x 23 row; Apple II, 40 col x 24 row.
  Remember that the old computers were modulating the signal to display on channel 3 or 4, so even more information was lost before it hit the CRT. Direct video and audio hookups were not widely available. The first console I remember having direct A/V was the original Nintendo, maybe the Sega Master System.
24. Re:Blurry text by dangitman · 2010-07-29 13:11 · Score: 1
  
  Until the "IBM PC" came along, most of us hooked our home computers to our televisions:
  And it was horrible. We only did it because it was the only option available to us.
  
  --
  ... and then they built the supercollider.
25. Re:Blurry text by guitarMan666 · 2010-07-29 13:13 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, text as 24x80 is readable, but even them, you don't want to be subjected to it, if you have a choice.
  The point of this device is that the people using them don't have a choice. If I read the site correctly, the main idea is for underpriviledged people and people in semi-developed nations would be using this to access information in a way that they otherwise would not be able to.
26. Re:Blurry text by CohibaVancouver · 2010-07-29 13:28 · Score: 1
  
  I ended up reworking the font on mine and burning a new EPROM for it.
  Cool. I remembering soldering a piggybacked chip onto the motherboard of my TRS-80 so I could get lowercase. Those kids can get off our lawn.
27. Re:Blurry text by Nethead · 2010-07-29 13:35 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  So THAT'S how it's done! I saw one once with lowercase and never could figure out how they did it.
  So, was it just solder another 2716 (or was it a 2708) on top, pull up the CS line and tag it to a 74LS138 somewhere?
  God, why do I still remember all this stuff?
  
  --
  -- I have a private email server in my basement.
28. Re:Blurry text by MichaelSmith · 2010-07-29 14:03 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  My first 3 computers hooked up to an old SDTV. In fact as I recall it was a Black & White TV.
  But did you tie an onion to your belt? ;-)
  Of course, because that was the style at the time.
  My system was called the Ohio scientific super board 2. It had a 6502, audio cassette interface and video modulator. Software was a little boot menu which you got after reset. The menu said D/C/W/M. D was for mysterious disk drives and I believe it would load a sector from a disk and jump to it. We weren't millionaires so we never used it. C reset RAM and jumped to BASIC. W Just jumped to BASIC. M jumped to a machine code monitor in a 256 byte ROM. The system came as a single PCB, with the keyboard soldered to the card. My dad sourced a power supply and built a timber case for it.
  It was the best toy a kid could have, bar none.
  
  --
  http://michaelsmith.id.au
29. Re:Blurry text by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-29 14:21 · Score: 0
  
  Today, none of us are blind. Well, some of us are. But likely for other reasons than reading text on an SDTV.
  Didn't your mother tell you to keep both hands on the keyboard?
30. Re:Blurry text by CohibaVancouver · 2010-07-29 15:57 · Score: 1
  
  was it just solder another 2716 (or was it a 2708) on top, pull up the CS line and tag it to a 74LS138 somewhere?
  Bingo! Exactly right.
31. Re:Blurry text by CohibaVancouver · 2010-07-29 16:02 · Score: 1
  
  Didn't your mother tell you to keep both hands on the keyboard?
  Hey, our porn looked like this, and we liked it that way!
  
  http://www.my-nightstand.com/media/ascii%20nude.jpg
32. Re:Blurry text by Nimey · 2010-07-29 16:14 · Score: 1
  
  The Apple ][ series supported TVs at 40 columns. You had to buy an RGB monitor to get 80 columns.
  Don't remember if my //c booted up in 80-column mode by default, or if you had to toggle the button at the keyboard's top-left.
  
  --
  Hail Eris, full of mischief...
  
  E pluribus sanguinem
33. Re:Blurry text by stephanruby · 2010-07-29 18:44 · Score: 1
  
  In fact in today technological society there are already more people reading more from screens of some kind, than from paper.
  Facts like these could stand a little batter anchorage.
  Wikipedia Channel 65534
34. Re:Blurry text by evilviper · 2010-07-29 19:01 · Score: 1
  
  Black & While LCDs are absolutely DIRT CHEAP, readable in all light conditions, and use a trickle of power. Additionally, you no longer need the additional digital to RF conversion steps, which certainly cost a decent amount of money.
  
  --
  Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
35. Re:Blurry text by brasselv · 2010-07-29 20:44 · Score: 1
  
  Is it just me, or the average age of /.ers is increasing?
  
  --
  "Whenever people agree with me I always feel I must be wrong." (Oscar Wilde)
36. Re:Blurry text by ColdGrits · 2010-07-29 21:12 · Score: 1
  
  Er, I can't talk, given that the first computer I used was a ZX81 (i.e. UK version of the TS-1000)
  Sorry to be pedantic, but the TS-1000 was the US version of the ZX81 - the ZX81 (invented by Sinclair) was the original, the Timex was the version branded for sale in the US subsequently.
  Speaking as the former owner of a ZX80, ZX81 amd ZX Spectrum... :-)
  
  --
  People should not be afraid of their governments - Governments should be afraid of their people.
37. Re:Blurry text by petermgreen · 2010-07-29 22:55 · Score: 1
  
  Looks like he is only doing composite video not RF. this will reduce the cost and avoid certain reliability (apparently old fasioned RF modulators aren't really stable enough for modern tuners to lock to) and compatbility issues but will mean that some really old TVs aren't compatible.
  
  --
  note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
38. Re:Blurry text by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-29 23:03 · Score: 0
  
  perfect for twitter
39. Re:Blurry text by petermgreen · 2010-07-29 23:03 · Score: 1
  
  While this is true, the text back in those days was pretty barebones. I couldn't find a screenshot of what the TV output looks like from this device.
  Well they say they took the firmware for the microcontroller that does the display from the tellymate project ( http://www.batsocks.co.uk/products/Other/TellyMate.htm ) and that project has screenshots (which look pretty barebones) and figures (38x25 which is fairly similar to teletext's 40x24).
  
  --
  note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
40. Re:Blurry text by Sockatume · 2010-07-29 23:21 · Score: 1
  
  Teletext usually gave about 500 characters/page plus some graphics. Given its popularity for things like news and sports, i.e. moderately-long articles, in the countries in which it is available, clearly it worked "well enough". As for "have a choice", it goes without saying that a product like this is not aimed at people who have the option of reading Wikipedia on a computer.
  
  --
  No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
41. Re:Blurry text by wjousts · 2010-07-30 00:35 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, me too. But I never tried to read an ENTIRE BOOK on it. Which was kinda my point.
42. Re:Blurry text by mdwh2 · 2010-07-30 00:53 · Score: 1
  
  VGA-resolution is bad.
  Sure, the resolution has to be low, but given that people quite happily read Wikipedia, other websites, and books, on their phones and so on, I'm not sure that's a fundamental problem. I remember getting 640x256 on a low resolution TV with it looking fine.
  And I'm not convinced by the argument that hardly anyone has HDTV - it seems a large number of TVs made in the last few years seem to be HD now.
43. Re:Blurry text by multipartmixed · 2010-07-30 01:05 · Score: 1
  
  Not just in the US, also in Canada.
  And it had an extra K of RAM!
  
  --
  
  Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
44. Re:Blurry text by CohibaVancouver · 2010-07-30 01:14 · Score: 1
  
  Is it just me, or the average age of /.ers is increasing
  Y'know, I've wondered the same thing over the last little while... Maybe all the young whippersnappers are on 'trendier' social media sites...
45. Re:Blurry text by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-30 01:26 · Score: 0
  
  Wikipedia: Spreading misinformation and bias since 2001
46. Re:Blurry text by Capt.DrumkenBum · 2010-07-30 05:09 · Score: 1
  
  No, but I did a lot of BBSing, and programming on them. Hours and hours of looking at blurry text.
  The point I was trying to make is: If a SDTV is the best you have, it will be good enough.
  
  --
  If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
47. Re:Blurry text by JimFive · 2010-07-30 07:44 · Score: 1
  
  To be even more pedantic the TS-1000 was an upgraded ZX81 and came later. The ZX81 was sold in the US (at least as a kit), I still have mine.
  --
  JimFive
  
  --
  Please stop using the word theory when you mean hypothesis.
48. Re:Blurry text by Dogtanian · 2010-07-30 08:30 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry to be pedantic, but the TS-1000 was the US version of the ZX81 - the ZX81 (invented by Sinclair) was the original
  Well yeah, I know- I honestly didn't elaborate on that point though as I didn't want to be pedantic(!)
  
  --
  "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
49. Re:Blurry text by byisk · 2010-08-02 05:44 · Score: 1
  
  Just because it is bad, a lot of my friends print articles from Wikipedia and read them outside the computer or - as in this news - TV screen.
  
  --
  Do not forget to check out my blog.
Nice, but... by girlintraining · 2010-07-29 07:03 · Score: 0

Most places where this would be useful can't afford a TV to hook it up to.

--
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
1. Re:Nice, but... by Dogtanian · 2010-07-29 07:43 · Score: 1
  
  Most places where this would be useful can't afford a TV to hook it up to.
  Where I live (*not* a particularly rich town), there is a total glut of old-style portable CRT TVs- no-one wants them and charity shops aren't even accepting them any more. I'm damn sure you could get one for bugger all if you wanted to.
  
  --
  "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
2. Re:Nice, but... by gorzek · 2010-07-29 07:47 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  You might want to check out the statistics as related by the company making these devices. The developing world has a glut of TVs but very few computers and little Internet access. These devices can help fill that gap.
  
  --
  Check out my world simulator thingy.
3. Re:Nice, but... by FuckingNickName · 2010-07-29 09:13 · Score: 1
  
  Am I the only human in the world who has reverted to CRTs on the desktop and in the living room?
  Cheap to buy. Colour looks right from all angles. Nice range of dark to bright. And built to last for decades - every LCD I've had to use is so fucking flimsy by comparison. Backlights fade and power supplies seem to be built with a self-destruct.
  Hell, on a larger non-HDTV screen (btw I want better writing, not more eye candy) the softness of an older set is much nicer than the blockiness of a new LCD.
  But then when I'm on the move it's with a Psion Series 3a and a 7-year-old mobile, wondering how the hell anyone does any real work on an iPhone thumbpad.
4. Re:Nice, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-29 10:34 · Score: 0
  
  Pretty much. Stop buying cheap LCDs.
5. Re:Nice, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-29 11:52 · Score: 0
  
  What, honestly, is a decent LCD? As in, I'm not going to lose anything I had with the CRT in terms of longevity, range and colour quality.
6. Re:Nice, but... by dangitman · 2010-07-29 13:18 · Score: 1
  
  The developing world has a glut of TVs but very few computers and little Internet access. These devices can help fill that gap.
  How does this help them get internet access? It requires a pre-existing internet connection to work.
  
  --
  ... and then they built the supercollider.
7. Re:Nice, but... by gorzek · 2010-07-30 00:44 · Score: 1
  
  The summary says it doesn't require one, and the implication on Humane's website is the same. It makes no sense to design a device for areas without Internet connectivity and then require it to have an Internet connection!
  
  --
  Check out my world simulator thingy.
8. Re:Nice, but... by dangitman · 2010-07-30 01:05 · Score: 1
  
  It makes no sense to design a device for areas without Internet connectivity and then require it to have an Internet connection!
  But you say in your post that it helps give them an internet connection. Not making a lot of sense there.
  
  --
  ... and then they built the supercollider.
9. Re:Nice, but... by gorzek · 2010-07-30 01:12 · Score: 1
  
  No, you just misread it. Or I was not clear enough. The "gap" being filled is one of information, not Internet access.
  
  --
  Check out my world simulator thingy.
10. Re:Nice, but... by dangitman · 2010-07-30 01:39 · Score: 1
  
  The "gap" being filled is one of information, not Internet access.
  Yeah, you don't really say that. The "gaps" you explicitly mention are "computers" and "internet access," neither of which this device addresses (technically, it might be a computer, but not how we would think of one in the modern context.)
  Couldn't the lack of information be better addressed by printed documents and local libraries, which don't even require electricity?
  
  --
  ... and then they built the supercollider.
11. Re:Nice, but... by Dogtanian · 2010-07-30 07:53 · Score: 1
  
  Am I the only human in the world who has reverted to CRTs on the desktop and in the living room?
  FWIW, I'm still watching my Trinitron portable, and very happy with it. Until about a month ago I was also using a CRT monitor, and replaced it partly due to some scratch-like damage to the CRT coating that (oddly) appears to have grown much worse and intrusive even in casual use- and partly due to it being fairly lo-res by modern standards.
  
  But despite the benefits of my new monitor, the viewing angle is poor (LCDs seem to have started getting *worse* after years of improvement in that area(!)) and its inbuilt TV tuner isn't as nice for standard definition material as the Trinitron. Partly because it's upscaled to 1080i, and partly because it's a matte screen. But the viewing angle is still an issue for TV viewing- then again, I bought the TV tuner as a cheap "nice to have" additional feature on a monitor, so no big deal.
  
  But the fact remains that there's a glut of portable CRT TVs, particularly since such sets never(?) include an integrated DVB-T digital tuner and my area is switching off the analogue signal soon. Sure, you can buy a digibox, as I've owned for years- but it's still not as "nice" if you're looking for an excuse to buy a new, dirt-cheap LCD telly anyway.
  
  --
  "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
12. Re:Nice, but... by Dogtanian · 2010-07-30 08:04 · Score: 1
  
  (Additional; "digibox" = genericised trademark commonly used in the UK to refer to an external digital terrestrial DVB-T TV tuner (*), similar to the American "converter box")
  
  (*) Irony is that the trademark Digibox came from Sky's *satellite* TV set-top box...
  
  --
  "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
Cool, but by Vahokif · 2010-07-29 07:06 · Score: 2, Interesting

Cool, but places where people have televisions also have public libraries. It's not like they can't find knowledge if they want to.
1. Re:Cool, but by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-29 07:17 · Score: 0
  
  So let's say you need to find some knowledge in a place that doesn't have any televisions. Which is easier: bringing in a TV (even if it means bringing in means to power it) and this device, or building an entire public library and stocking it with books? A small LCD display, battery, and this thing can easily fit in a backpack and go anywhere in the world.
2. Re:Cool, but by dave562 · 2010-07-29 07:21 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  On the other hand, a public library might not be updated as regularly as Wikipedia. Or if your library is like the ones in my neighborhood, the computers often have a wait time. This is something I think would be a great tool to be used in conjunction with a public library. At the start of every semester or school year, some kid's parent could go to the library and download the latest version of Wikipedia. Then the kid can access information at home. I know it's hard to believe, but not every home in America can afford a computer and a $30 a month DSL bill.
3. Re:Cool, but by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-29 07:35 · Score: 0
  
  Cool, but places where people have televisions also have public libraries. It's not like they can't find knowledge if they want to.
  How can you be so sure. Have you traveled the world and seen the various conditions in which people live? It seems that many people at slashdot have a difficult time thinking outside of the united states.
4. Re:Cool, but by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-29 07:43 · Score: 0
  
  No, but they can afford a nettop or netbook.
5. Re:Cool, but by Joce640k · 2010-07-29 07:55 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  A public library is where devices like this really belong.
  
  --
  No sig today...
6. Re:Cool, but by TooMuchToDo · 2010-07-29 08:22 · Score: 1
  
  I'd say pay for the 802.11 chipset and allow the device to update wirelessly. I've found it much easier to find WiFi than an ethernet plug almost anywhere in the world except Japan (WTF Japan?)
7. Re:Cool, but by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-29 10:46 · Score: 0
  
  bullshit. Many African and South American villages have TVs but no library.
8. Re:Cool, but by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-29 12:58 · Score: 0
  
  In the Main Winnipeg public library, the newest computer book extols the virtues of Windows 2000, and SQL server 7. Not knowledge I really need at the moment...
9. Re:Cool, but by fyrewulff · 2010-07-30 04:19 · Score: 1
  
  Having worked at a public library, people don't actually want to FUND the libraries. We had times where there were subjects you could not check books out on at my branch because we had none left and no money to replace them.
  
  --
  "We need to get over this notion, that, for Apple to win... Microsoft must lose." - Steve Jobs, 1997
Optional Keyboard? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-29 07:07 · Score: 0

Browsing wikipedia sans keyboard is only for the seriously 1337.
1. Re:Optional Keyboard? by Frosty+Piss · 2010-07-29 07:58 · Score: 1
  
  And, Wikipedia will not need an Internet conx, so what ever version it is will soon be stale. When they discover that Abraham Lincoln was a Jewish meat-cutter on Staten Island who liked hardcore punk, the people surfing Wikipedia on this thing will remain ignorant.
  
  --
  If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
"the each"?? Is proofreading too hard? by euxneks · 2010-07-29 07:14 · Score: 0, Troll

How the hell do people keep making mistakes with their english all over the internet? Are you really too busy to re-read what you've just written? "the each"?? really? Every time I read something like this I get a hiccup in my mind and have to mentally process what it is you're actually trying to say. Granted, it's minor and easy to figure out but it's annoying none the less. A little proofreading goes a long way towards legibility.

--
in girum imus nocte et consumimur igni
1. Re:"the each"?? Is proofreading too hard? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-29 07:45 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Can't see the forest for the trees, huh? Some guy is trying to create a device to try spread knowledge and you're bickering over a simple typo.
  I mean, you're using double question marks in your topic and failing to capitalize a bunch of stuff. Oh, and 'nonetheless' should be contracted into a single word. If you're going to wail about grammar and spelling, then at least try to contribute a comment that's properly formatted, rather than paint yourself a fool.
2. Re:"the each"?? Is proofreading too hard? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-29 07:50 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  You made two capitalization errors (three, if you count "the internet") and spelled nonetheless as three words. I really don't care, but since you're being a pedant...
3. Re:"the each"?? Is proofreading too hard? by Schemat1c · 2010-07-29 08:52 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  How the hell do people keep making mistakes with their english all over the internet? Are you really too busy to re-read what you've just written? "the each"?? really? Every time I read something like this I get a hiccup in my mind and have to mentally process what it is you're actually trying to say. Granted, it's minor and easy to figure out but it's annoying none the less. A little proofreading goes a long way towards legibility.
  Go outside and get some air you miserable fuck.
  
  --
  
  "Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everybody agrees that it is old enough to know better." - Unknown
4. Re:"the each"?? Is proofreading too hard? by MobileTatsu-NJG · 2010-07-29 09:03 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  How the hell do people keep making mistakes with their english all over the internet? Are you really too busy to re-read what you've just written? "the each"?? really? Every time I read something like this I get a hiccup in my mind and have to mentally process what it is you're actually trying to say. Granted, it's minor and easy to figure out but it's annoying none the less. A little proofreading goes a long way towards legibility.
  Boy, I wish I was so smart that a little phrase like 'the each' would make me bang my fists on the keyboard.
  
  --
  
  "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
$20 for 8 bits?!?! by Ossifer · 2010-07-29 07:17 · Score: 4, Funny

That's $2.50 per bit!
Outrageous!
1. Re:$20 for 8 bits?!?! by CannonballHead · 2010-07-29 07:31 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Yeah... that's a bit expensive.
2. Re:$20 for 8 bits?!?! by SQLGuru · 2010-07-29 07:34 · Score: 1
  
  [quote]two 8-bit microcontrollers[/quote]
  Reading comprehension fail. $20 for 16-bit. $1.25 each.
3. Re:$20 for 8 bits?!?! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-29 07:48 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  isnt 8-bit + 8 bit = 9 bit? (10011001 on controller 0 or controller 1, so could be represented by 010011001, or 110011001 respectively).
  Perhaps if you concatenate them, THEN you can have 16-bit.
4. Re:$20 for 8 bits?!?! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-29 08:13 · Score: 0
  
  what if the real value is in the info?
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Database_download
  Warning: the compressed file enwiki-20100130-pages-meta-history.xml.bz2 is over 280.3 GB in size, and decompresses to several (>5) Terabytes of text. Before consuming Wikipedia's bandwidth, which is needed to serve millions of users around the world, ask yourself: do you really have enough hard disk space and computing resources to work on this file? Can't you use Wikipedia's API instead and work on a small random sample of the dataset?
  @ $20 = 8.30648033 × 10^-12 US$ / bit
  @ $35 = 1.45363406 × 10^-11 US$ / bit ...
  what's more likely to be on the SD card
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_CD_Selection
  The Wikipedia Selection is a DVD selection of articles taken from Wikipedia, a free online encyclopedia, and was first produced in April 2006. There have been two major revisions since then, the 2007 version in April 2007 and the 2008/9 version in October 2008. It was the first available English language CD version of Wikipedia. The disc is produced by the charity SOS Children.
  4.7 GB
  @ $20 = 4.95384348 × 10^-10 US$ / bit
  @ $35 = 8.66922609 × 10^-10 US$ / bit
  8.5 GB (double layer)
  @ $20 = 8.66922609 × 10^-10 US$ / bit
  @ $35 = 4.79357208 × 10^-10 US$ / bit
  pretty steep :\
5. Re:$20 for 8 bits?!?! by Eternauta3k · 2010-07-29 08:15 · Score: 1
  
  Sure beats my data charges...
  
  --
  Yeah. Would you choose a neurosurgeon who pokes around people's brains in his spare time? I wouldn't.
6. Re:$20 for 8 bits?!?! by hydromike2 · 2010-07-29 08:32 · Score: 1
  
  That bit rate gonna byte you in the ass when the bill comes!
7. Re:$20 for 8 bits?!?! by Just+Some+Guy · 2010-07-29 08:45 · Score: 1
  
  That's $2.50 per bit!
  Outrageous!
  You must have an unlimited texting plan, or you'd be used to those rates by now.
  
  --
  Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
8. Re:$20 for 8 bits?!?! by MobileTatsu-NJG · 2010-07-29 09:06 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah... that's a bit expensive.
  I remember when things like that were as cheap as a shave and a hair cut.
  
  --
  
  "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
9. Re:$20 for 8 bits?!?! by FishTankX · 2010-07-29 10:44 · Score: 1
  
  Not as expensive as the PS3's $4.68/bit.
  Or my laptop's $15/bit.
Bits or books by clarkkent09 · 2010-07-29 07:17 · Score: 1

it can hold the equivalent of 5,000 books

...if the books are 200 pages long each. Or it can hold 500 books if they are 2000 pages long each. In other words it either holds a dump truck full of books, or a Volkswagen full of books. Hope that makes it clear for the non-technical readers out there.

--
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
1. Re:Bits or books by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-29 07:32 · Score: 0
  
  In other words it either holds a dump truck full of book...
  
  So you're saying it's a lot like the internet, right?
2. Re:Bits or books by Capt.DrumkenBum · 2010-07-29 07:37 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  But are the books paperback or hard covered?
  Inquireing minds want to know.
  
  --
  If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
3. Re:Bits or books by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-29 07:44 · Score: 0
  
  Not until we can figure how to fit a book into a tube
4. Re:Bits or books by CohibaVancouver · 2010-07-29 08:00 · Score: 1
  
  Hope that makes it clear for the non-technical readers out there
  It won't really be, until the values are based on "Numbers of Libraries of Congress."
5. Re:Bits or books by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-29 08:13 · Score: 0
  
  Well, there's 142 million books in the LoC. That would mean that one of these can hold 3.52 * 10^-5 (0.0000352) Libraries of Congress.
6. Re:Bits or books by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-29 08:37 · Score: 0
  
  Or, for those of us who are engineers, 35.2 microLoC (does anyone know how to put a 'mu' on Slashdot?)
7. Re:Bits or books by somaTh · 2010-07-29 08:49 · Score: 1
  
  I'm sorry, I don't understand your crazy metrics. Can you give it to me in Libraries of Congress? You know, something understandable?
  
  --
  Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
come on... by Charliemopps · 2010-07-29 07:18 · Score: 0

I want a $35 kindle with a SD slot and not monthly fee. I'd buy that in a heart beat.
1. Re:come on... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-29 07:29 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  You realize the kindle doesn't have a monthly fee right? Not saying anything about your other requirements, just that one.
2. Re:come on... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-29 08:22 · Score: 0
  
  I want a $5 blowjob, but your mom won't return my calls.
3. Re:come on... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-29 09:16 · Score: 0
  
  His mom told me some dude was leaving her voicemail offering outrageous prices; she figures it must be some kind of prank, since she only charges $0.75...
4. Re:come on... by mattack2 · 2010-07-29 12:48 · Score: 1
  
  ...and while it's obviously over $100 more than his price, the new $139 WiFi Kindle is tempting -- and I already have far more physical books that I've already bought than I have time to read (and no, the carrying around of them is not a reason why I haven't read them). Even just for the free books you can get.
Offline Wikipedia by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-29 07:21 · Score: 0

Is there an official offline Wikipedia for download?
If so I haven't been able to find it, would love one for my not very smart phone.
1. Re:Offline Wikipedia by blai · 2010-07-29 07:26 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  http://lmgtfy.com/?q=download+wikipedia&l=1
  
  You didn't try at all did you?
  
  --
  In soviet Russia, God creates you!
2. Re:Offline Wikipedia by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-29 07:35 · Score: 0
  
  No I did try, but oddly enough did not come up with the same answer as you.
  So thank you for pointing me in the right direction.
  And go fuck yourself for being an asshole about it.
3. Re:Offline Wikipedia by spazdor · 2010-07-29 07:37 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  http://www.free-soft.ro/pocket-wikipedia/pocket-wikipedia.html
  It's not official, but it's fine.
  
  --
  DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
4. Re:Offline Wikipedia by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-29 07:59 · Score: 0
  
  Thanks, that is much more helpful than the terabyte file I would get straight from Wikipedia.
  Much more likely to fit on my phone.
Noble but useless. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-29 07:23 · Score: 0

So then, who is going to buy this device? Where will you find 10,000 buyers? And what real impact will this have on education? Given recent study reports on the effect of computers in educational systems, how can introducing to other, less well-off cultures or settings an electronic babysitter that kids won't even enjoy or use have an impact outside of those individuals that are already highly driven learners?
You want to increase education, increase quality teachers. Better yet, increase quality of parents... that's the biggest influence on children.
1. Re:Noble but useless. by twiddlingbits · 2010-07-29 07:31 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Considering India just announced a $35 Linux laptop INCLUDING screen, memory and hard drive this product is overpriced and under capable. In the longer run the Linux laptop should be under $20. IThe laptop also allows the user to learn anywhere not just where the TV is located. I think most people would be OK carrying a laptop versus a TV. I would also think it takes less power for an LCD laptop than for a TV. Nice invention, only 10 yrs too late.
2. Re:Noble but useless. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-29 07:36 · Score: 0
  
  You want to increase education, increase quality teachers. Better yet, increase quality of parents...
  How do you propose to do that? Increase quality of education so future teachers and parents aren't stupid by the time they're adults?
3. Re:Noble but useless. by b0bby · 2010-07-29 07:36 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  The difference is that this can actually be built for around $35, less than that in bulk. The Indian announcement is very unlikely to actually result in a $35 laptop.
4. Re:Noble but useless. by twiddlingbits · 2010-07-29 07:42 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  I seriously doubt that $35 claim on his device. If he sells it in the USA the requirements to make it "safe" will drive up the cost. Who even makes 8-bit microcontrollers? The last time I played with them was the Intel 8051 and 8031 in the early 1990s and they were hard to get then. The $35 laptop made in India for use in India..yea they can do that.
5. Re:Noble but useless. by xiox · 2010-07-29 07:50 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  I might doubt the cost too, but 8 bit microcontrollers are very popular now, even with the widespread availability of 32 bit systems. Many consumer devices include Microchip and Atmel chips if they don't need more power. There's also a bit Arduino (Atmel) hobby crowd.
6. Re:Noble but useless. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-29 07:52 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  8-bit microcontrollers are easy to buy. You just have to buy the part micro-controller. The arduino has an 8-bit micro-controller.
7. Re:Noble but useless. by Nadaka · 2010-07-29 08:00 · Score: 1
  
  Considering that the 10 dollar computer that was also announces is turning out to be a 30 dollar plastic box with no input or screen, and it costs no less than $30? that $35 tablet is going to be at least $60 when they are done with it.
8. Re:Noble but useless. by twiddlingbits · 2010-07-29 08:19 · Score: 1
  
  Even if it is $60 or 60 rupees, for double the cost you get one hell of a lot more utility!!! Plus the laptops can also access the Internet where it is available. IIRC, this thing you hook to the TV you need a PC to download then xfer to an SD card, unless of course they catch on and someone starts selling books on SD cards. With Kindles at $139 now, and laptops under $100 the cost vs utility of this device is poor.
9. Re:Noble but useless. by petermgreen · 2010-07-29 23:20 · Score: 1
  
  Who even makes 8-bit microcontrollers?
  Atmel and microchip mainly at least if by 8-bit you mean 8-bit data (most microcontrollers at that level are harvard architectures with wider program memory than data memory).
  I haven't used the atmel stuff (which he is using) myself so I can't comment on how easy it is to get. Most of the microchip stuff i've used is held as stock by both RS and Farnell (the two major prototyping parts vendors here in the UK) and microchip will also sell it you directly (though the shipping and handling charges are annoying). In the US you'd probablly want to look at digikey, mouser or newark as a source.
  
  --
  note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
10. Re:Noble but useless. by ais523 · 2010-07-30 00:48 · Score: 1
  
  If you're in the UK, you might also want to look at Maplin Electronics; they're generally slightly more expensive than RS or Farnell, but willing to sell in smaller quantities, which is nice if you're a hobbyist. (Last time I went there, several years ago, they were even willing to sell single resistors for 7p each, rather expensive for a resistor, but cheaper overall if you just want a few because you don't have to buy thousands at a time. I assume they're more expensive nowadays.)
  
  --
  (1)DOCOMEFROM!2~.2'~#1WHILE:1<-"'?.1$.2'~'"':1/.1$.2'~#0"$#65535'"$"'"'&.1$.2'~'#0$#65535'"$#0'~#32767$#1"
11. Re:Noble but useless. by petermgreen · 2010-07-30 05:40 · Score: 1
  
  If you're in the UK, you might also want to look at Maplin Electronics
  mmm I do sometimes use them when i'm in a pinch. the big problem with maplin is that thier range of components has got worse and worse over the years. I do still sometimes use them in a pinch though.
  they were even willing to sell single resistors for 7p each, rather expensive for a resistor,
  seems they have gone up to 17p. Buy 10 at that price and you are up to nearly what rapid want for 100 equivilent resistors*
  because you don't have to buy thousands at a time
  Thousands is a bit of an exaggeration but yeah resistors do tend to come in fairly high quantities (50-100 is a typical pack size).
  A bigger problem is minimum order values and/or small order charges. It's fine when your buying everything for project at once but a real pain when I just want one or two components for a hobby project**.
  When it comes to prototyping resistors i've found the best thing to do is to get a resistor kit, for prototyping resistors e.g. http://www.rapidonline.com/Electronic-Components/Resistors-Potentiometer/Metal-Film-Resistors/MR25-Metal-film-resistor-kit/65199 .
  P.S. I didn't mention maplin or rapid in my previous post because the subject at hand was micrcontrollers and afaict both maplin's and rapid's ranges of microcontrollers seem pretty absymal.
  * The resistors maplin sell are actually relatively high spec having a power rating of 0.6W (in the conventional 0.25W body size) and a tolerance of 1%, if all you really needed was a cheap carbon film then maplin's price looks even worse.
  ** when doing stuff for the uni the uni hs deals that get us out of things like minimum order values and small order charges as well as getting us pretty steep discounts
  
  --
  note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
Is it just me? Or is the e-book thing... by Chas · 2010-07-29 07:25 · Score: 1

Just kinda underwhelming?
Maybe I've become a relic, but I don't enjoy reading for long periods of time on a screen.
If I do, I want a book, or at least, a printout.

--

Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Re:Is it just me? Or is the e-book thing... by MozeeToby · 2010-07-29 07:32 · Score: 1

That's why the majority of eReaders on the market use eInk as their primary display. It basically eliminates the problem of eyestrain from reading off a screen. The older ones don't have very high contrast though, which makes Amazon's recent announcement of 50% better contrast very intriguing to me.
Text only? by sleeping143 · 2010-07-29 07:34 · Score: 1

The wikipedia articles are alright, but it seems to me that having photos with short articles would make this much more compelling. After all, people don't love reading old copies of national geographic just for the articles. The pictures are generally what make it interesting and exciting, which is exactly how we want to portray learning to third-world children.
1. Re:Text only? by Darkness404 · 2010-07-29 07:50 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Sure, but seriously remember how expensive encyclopedias used to be? Really, times have changed immensely, I remember back when I was in school you had access to an edition of The World Book Encyclopedia or Encyclopaedia Britannica that was older than you, that never seemed to have the article you really needed. You had a library filled with old outdated books and no real easy way to search them (remember paper card catalogs?). And something like this for cheap would have been a godsend, far better than the old encylopedias and reference material.
  
  --
  Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
2. Re:Text only? by Mr.Radar · 2010-07-29 07:53 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Unfortunately Wikimedia Commons, the source for all the images on Wikipedia, does not guarantee that all the images it hosts can be redistributed (even solely for the purpose of inclusion with "offline" versions of Wikipedia) and doesn't provide a one-stop download to get all of its content (like Wikipedia provides). Tools to download (scrape) all of Wikimedia Commons do exist, but as of a year or two ago there was already 500 gigabytes of content if you wanted a full mirror and I can only imagine that the amount of content has grown significantly since then. So even if they could do it legally, they wouldn't be able to practically unless wanted to add a hard drive to the design (drastically increasing the cost).
  
  --
  What if this signature were clever?
3. Re:Text only? by sleeping143 · 2010-07-29 08:18 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not entirely sure where you're disagreeing with me. I'm not saying that I want them to use old National Geographic articles, I'm saying that the format is good for drawing people in to the reading. The format doesn't require that the device be massive (though it certainly would require more storage), and it certainly doesn't need to be out-of-date.
4. Re:Text only? by Darkness404 · 2010-07-29 08:23 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not disagreeing with you, but I'm just saying that if we look back the fact that all this can be done for $20 or $30, technology has come a long ways and the fact that we can put this in the hands of the third world they would have stuff that we wouldn't have had 30 years ago in most schools. Less of a disagreement and more of a "lets take a step back and think of how far we've came" post.
  
  --
  Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
5. Re:Text only? by sleeping143 · 2010-07-29 08:23 · Score: 1
  
  I understand that the device couldn't reasonably store all of Wikimedia Commons, but then it certainly can't hold all of Wikipedia either. Obviously, there would need to be some editorial work to make sure that the included information is useful, and I think that, while the effort is being put in, good photos to illustrate articles could be a very valuable addition.
6. Re:Text only? by lennier · 2010-07-29 10:09 · Score: 1
  
  Unfortunately Wikimedia Commons, the source for all the images on Wikipedia, does not guarantee that all the images it hosts can be redistributed
  
  It doesn't? That seems like the exact opposite of what their license page says
  Though perhaps you are referring to country-specific copyright expiry or non-copyright restrictions?
  
  --
  You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
7. Re:Text only? by tepples · 2010-07-29 10:35 · Score: 1
  
  Unfortunately Wikimedia Commons, the source for all the images on Wikipedia, does not guarantee that all the images it hosts can be redistributed
  True, a Commons uploader can misrepresent the copyright status of an uploaded image. But a Wikipedia editor can also misrepresent the copyright status of submitted text. In the copyright climate of 2010, there is no such thing as a guarantee.
8. Re:Text only? by Mr.Radar · 2010-07-29 11:18 · Score: 1
  
  Whoops, you're right. In reviewing the page you linked it looks like Wikimedia Commons does guarantee licensing for reproduction at least in the context of copies of Wikipedia. However I was also wrong that all of the images from Wikipedia come from Wikimedia Commons. The Wikimedia Commons collection doesn't include "fair use" images and some other types of images which are used on Wikipedia (e.g. this image of Superman). That means that some of the images on Wikipedia are definitely okay for redistribution, but not all of them. As the Wikipedia database dump page puts it, "in conclusion, download [the] images [used on Wikipedia] at your own risk."
  
  --
  What if this signature were clever?
Re:Is it just me? Or is the e-book thing... by Darkness404 · 2010-07-29 07:34 · Score: 1

That is where e-ink comes in. Seriously, the first time I tried a Kindle I thought there was a sticker on the screen, it looks that much like paper.

Yes, trying to read it on your iPad, laptop, etc. is going to be underwhelming, but the Kindle/Nook e-readers with e-ink is very easy on the eyes and just as good as paper.

--
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Hmm. by blair1q · 2010-07-29 07:35 · Score: 1

I wish I'd thought of that.
Re:Is it just me? Or is the e-book thing... by gEvil+(beta) · 2010-07-29 07:36 · Score: 1

Just kinda underwhelming?

Maybe I've become a relic, but I don't enjoy reading for long periods of time on a screen.
If I do, I want a book, or at least, a printout.

That's where the whole e-ink thing comes into play -- a screen that uses reflected (instead of emitted) light. As much of a cliché as it is, the screen really does disappear once you get into whatever you're reading.

--
This guy's the limit!
Just convert the E-Book to 1920x1080 jpg's by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-29 07:37 · Score: 0

If you convert your E-Book to a slideshow of 1920x1080 pixel images you can put it on a USB stick and stick it directly in your modern Full-HD LCD or plasma TV. It would be a far better/sharper reading experience than the 3 to 5 MHz bandwidth most composite video inputs can handle...
Just my $0.02
1. Re:Just convert the E-Book to 1920x1080 jpg's by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-29 08:05 · Score: 0
  
  yes, because the people that this $35 device is targeted at are definitely the kind of people that have HDTVs, access to a computer, and knowledge of how to convert an E-Book into images.
2. Re:Just convert the E-Book to 1920x1080 jpg's by Jeng · 2010-07-29 08:15 · Score: 1
  
  Oddly enough that might not be the demographic they are aiming at, but I would think that would be the demographic more likely to buy one.
  Much like the OLPC, they may have been targeted at undeveloped nations, but I would bet more geeks bought them as toys than how many were deployed to undeveloped nations.
  
  --
  Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
3. Re:Just convert the E-Book to 1920x1080 jpg's by Lord+of+Hyphens · 2010-07-29 22:50 · Score: 1
  
  More likely that some other geek builds their own design to the same spec.
  
  --
  "I've spent my whole life figuring out crazy ways to do things. It'll work." -- Montgomery Scott, "Relics"
Re:Is it just me? Or is the e-book thing... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-29 07:37 · Score: 0

It's just you.
This thing isn't even an e-reader (those are typically portable including the screen).
This thing is extremely low-cost access to information, which you probably don't need (the extremely low cost part).
It is low-cost to the point of being primitive, yet still useful. I'm sure many people would be happy to read from a screen instead of not read the information at all. Got any idea what it would cost to print wikipedia on paper?
Re:Is it just me? Or is the e-book thing... by ISoldat53 · 2010-07-29 07:44 · Score: 1

I second that. Plus the you can change the font size to help the hard of seeing.
My apple //e had composite out by way2trivial · 2010-07-29 07:47 · Score: 1

I remember the first time I dared hook it up to the VCR input
(5 siblings, one televison, and i was going to do something that made it single use person only)
and DAMN it looked good in color on the TV...

--
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
Well Good timing by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-29 07:49 · Score: 0

You see if I could buy this thing right friggin now I would, but its more or less a an arduino with some plywood glued on top
And by the time they get done hyping it up for market there will be a billion DIY versions of it, including mine
40-column text? by Joce640k · 2010-07-29 07:52 · Score: 1

It doesn't say what the display is but it's probably going to be 40 column text. 80-column is possible but I remember 80 columns being almost unreadable in my home computer days (and it took 16k of RAM for a black/white 80-column screen).
Will there be graphics....? Decoding JPEG images on an 8-bit chip will be painful. The device won't be able to hold all the bitmaps for a page in RAM so they'd have to be decoded on the fly as you scroll. Ick.
Doing this in 8 bits is reducing it too far. A 16-bit chip wouldn't cost much more but would make this device much, MUCH better.

--
No sig today...
Size by adeft · 2010-07-29 07:52 · Score: 1

No mention of actual storage capacity that I could find...or does it rely on SD cards....or what? Wikipedia is in the Gigabyte range afaik
That is neat by the_hellspawn · 2010-07-29 07:56 · Score: 0

I could see a use for this. Lets say after watching a PBS episode of NOVA and a topic that was really interesting to a young one. The young one starts investigating the topic of interest. The young one goes and researches further when access to books and/or the internet unveils itself. The young one later becomes the next person that advances us monkeys into a status of smarter monkeys. Also be aware I suffer from false hopes and lies. My fantasies and delusions are awesomes.

--
"The laws of science be a harsh mistress." --Bender
Re:Is it just me? Or is the e-book thing... by natehoy · 2010-07-29 07:59 · Score: 1

I don't disagree completely, I'm just wondering about how much this is going to be useful where it's really needed. I mean, it's a "bring your own screen", and that means it's going to need a TV. Oh, and be somewhere you have enough power to run a TV.
I suppose you could find enough of those little 9" black and white portable jobbies to fulfill some of the need, and those take various voltages of power both in AC and DC, but the kind of power a hand-crank generator puts out isn't going to run any TV anyone in Middle NoWhereistan is going to be able to get.
By and large, the market that can afford this and a TV and power to run the whole thing isn't going to want it. Or am I missing some significant market segment?
Except maybe as a portable schoolbook in areas where TVs are common, I suppose. Kid hooks it up to a TV at school, has access to textbooks, hooks it up at TV home and has same access, and if kid drops it school district is out a replacement cost that's far less than the cost of one printed textbook, and two orders of magnitude less than the cost of a brandy-new MacBook Pro.
VGA-out, if it's not terribly expensive, could at least allow it to be hooked up to a computer monitor - slightly better resolution, not all that much harder to obtain, etc.

--
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
Sounds over-engineered by AnotherBlackHat · 2010-07-29 08:11 · Score: 1

Two micro controllers sounds like at least one too many to me, and it looks like they're using reed switches instead of the much cheaper membrain type.
Let's face it, $35 isn't cheap. $20 is a lot better (you're now in impulse purchase range) but it's still not cheap - there's a link to a $12 computer on the same page as the article.
I like the idea, but if you're going to wish for 10,000 units, then you might as well wish for enough units to support full scale integration and put everything on a single chip.
WRONG! It's not about the USA by mangu · 2010-07-29 08:38 · Score: 3, Insightful

places where people have televisions also have public libraries
I'm Brazilian and you wouldn't believe how few public libraries there are in Brazil. Even most public schools don't have libraries. But every family, even the poorest ones, have a TV.
I think their website must be on one of them... by Joce640k · 2010-07-29 09:13 · Score: 1

It's been overloaded for hours and there's no real details on the linked page.

--
No sig today...
Re:Is it just me? Or is the e-book thing... by HeckRuler · 2010-07-29 09:59 · Score: 1

Plus, oh I dunno, the cost of publishing is reduced to NEGLIGIBLE!
(or should be)
Pfff mine says DON'T PANIC by hviniciusg · 2010-07-29 10:47 · Score: 1

I like mine better, it has DON'T PANIC on the cover. its cheaper than Encyclopedia Galactica. and says mostly harmful on the earth entry.
Move along, nothing to see here
Lame design! by jmorris42 · 2010-07-29 11:54 · Score: 3, Insightful

The design is truly lame. Yes bitbanging ntsc video out of an AVR is neat but if you are really trying to build a mass produced device this design is about as stupid as possible. Bitbang video and bitbang USB via yet another AVR with a third as the CPU? Oh. My. God.
Use a single chip ARM or MIPS with a real framebuffer with video out and USB on chip. Can't cost more than the three AVRs in quantity and will do so much more.
And another benefit is that they are also pitching it as a computer but it isn't. I love the AVR line as an embedded colution but the Harvard arch is a killer in that you can't run programs from RAM and the program flash is only good for 10K writes.

--
Democrat delenda est
1. Re:Lame design! by Nethead · 2010-07-29 12:47 · Score: 1
  
  But I always meant to do something with my copy of the TV Typewriter Cookbook.
  http://www.swtpc.com/mholley/RadioElectronics/TV_Typewriter.htm
  
  --
  -- I have a private email server in my basement.
2. Re:Lame design! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-29 14:02 · Score: 0
  
  Agreed.
  3 AVR's?
  In quantity 1000, digikey, that's 3*$2.77 = $8.31.
  A single 100-TQFP Xilinx Spartan-3 that is 50K gates and also has the equivalent of 7 kilobytes of RAM, sells for $5.52 quantity 1 on digikey and could easily handle this entire project.
3. Re:Lame design! by gregben · 2010-07-29 17:07 · Score: 1
  
  A chip like http://www.microchip.com/wwwproducts/Devices.aspx?dDocName=en545659
  this PIC32MX695F512L is $9.58 in single unit quantities and is orders of magnitude more versatile
  than the 3 Atmel AVRs in the proposed device. It has a full 32-bit processor (MIPS),
  512K of Flash, and 128K of RAM, plus ethernet, USB, serial I/O, etc. Couple it with
  a small FPGA and you can build quite a system that sells for less than $50.00 and still
  make a little profit.
4. Re:Lame design! by jmorris42 · 2010-07-29 17:47 · Score: 1
  
  No, you would never get reliable video from that one. But keep looking, there are a few SoC products still in production that has NTSC video as an option along with the LCD drivers that are all but universal.
  
  --
  Democrat delenda est
This is great and all... by tnok85 · 2010-07-29 13:17 · Score: 1

And I am very excited to see they want to use this for 'learning'. Great, 'learning' from an offline dump of Wikipedia. What's going to happen when hundreds of thousands of children in developing nations get a dump with some vandalism in it? Will they learn that George W. Bush is the spawn of some underworld creature, or Barack Obama is an Islamic terrorist born in Kenya? How will they respect the British elite military frogmen when they believe them to be half-men half-frog creatures that live in the sea?
I watched Braddock demo it. by mrflash818 · 2010-07-29 13:41 · Score: 1

It was easy to read the text on a standard (non-HD) TV screen.

--
Uh, Linux geek since 1999.
Not Worth It by tabdelgawad · 2010-07-29 15:19 · Score: 1

With Kindles and Nooks headed below $100, probably by Christmas, this is not worth the eyestrain and massive headaches!

--
Imposing Libertarian views on everyone online since 1992.
Re:Is it just me? Or is the e-book thing... by Lord+of+Hyphens · 2010-07-29 22:47 · Score: 1

Yeah, that's what I tell everyone about the Nook's screen (prefer the Nook b/c of its format support)--just like paper.

--
"I've spent my whole life figuring out crazy ways to do things. It'll work." -- Montgomery Scott, "Relics"
Re:A 2-bit Sheet Feeder for your Trash Can by alphatel · 2010-07-30 00:04 · Score: 1

I still stand by my original perspective on this device in perpetuity.

--
When the foot seeks the place of the head, the line is crossed. Know your place. Keep your place. Be a shoe.
android by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-30 06:56 · Score: 0

Well gee, I know of a better $35 wikipedia reader. No TV needed!
http://www.engadget.com/2010/07/23/35-tablet-from-india-looks-to-be-worth-every-paisa-video/
Irony by way2trivial · 2010-07-30 08:46 · Score: 1

Displaying Ascii porn as a JPG
63,488 bytes of jpg- to show a picture that AS DESIGNED
took maybe80*200=16,000 bytes in the original iteration?
ascii is LOSSLESS imagery.. you can even zip it down and compress it further

--
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
Linux Journal reported on this 1st by DJ_Maiko · 2010-07-30 10:19 · Score: 0

It should be noted that LinuxJournal.com was the first to report on this story yet the author from Wired doesn't cite his/her sources. Great project!
http://www.linuxjournal.com/content/open-source-8-bit-computer-save-world

--
Live as if you were to die tomorrow. Learn as if you were to live forever. -Mahatma Ghandi