<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0">
   <channel>
      <title>Andy&apos;s Blog</title>
      <link>http://blog.aharbick.com/</link>
      <description>Wasting more of your time</description>
      <language>en</language>
      <copyright>Copyright 2010</copyright>
      <lastBuildDate>Thu, 29 Jul 2010 00:15:00 -0500</lastBuildDate>
      <generator>http://www.sixapart.com/movabletype/</generator>
      <docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
      
      <item>
         <title>Sharing a phone is like sharing a toothbrush</title>
         <description>On our roadtrip this summer our car was broken into and every last piece of technology (Nintendo DSes, iPhones, computers, etc.) was stolen except for my iPhone which was conveniently in my pocket like an extra appendage.  We replaced some stuff on the trip, but intentionally chose not to replace Shiree&apos;s phone because we didn&apos;t want to mess up her upgrade to the imminent iPhone 4.  What that meant is that throughout the entire trip (as I drove) I got to experience another person using *my* phone...  &quot;I need to look up a phone number, I need to check my email, I want to look at the map, what&apos;s the weather supposed to be like tomorrow.&quot;  Now it was my wife so we can share right?  Umm...  just like my toothbrush I&apos;d rather not.  It&apos;s not rational, I know, but there&apos;s something about the personal-ness of a phone.</description>
         <link>http://blog.aharbick.com/2010/07/sharing_a_phone_is_like_sharin.html</link>
         <guid>http://blog.aharbick.com/2010/07/sharing_a_phone_is_like_sharin.html</guid>
        
        
         <pubDate>Thu, 29 Jul 2010 00:15:00 -0500</pubDate>
      </item>
      
      <item>
         <title>Apple is an Experience Company</title>
         <description>There has been a lot of hate around Apple&apos;s change to &quot;section 3.3.1&quot;:http://www.google.com/search?q=section+3.3.1 over the past few days.  The essence of the change is that apps for the iPhone/iPad must be developed in Objective-C, C, C++ or JavaScript.  Looking at the change through a narrow lens it appears that Apple is boxing out Flash, .Net, Java, etc. developers.  Understandably those developers complain about hindering creativity, monopolistic control, etc.  John Gruber&apos;s &quot;reasoning&quot;:http://daringfireball.net/2010/04/why_apple_changed_section_331 is a sound reply to all the banter.

Let me add one more thought...  Apple is NOT a hardware company.  They&apos;re not a software company.  They&apos;re an EXPERIENCE company (read &quot;The Experience Economy&quot;:http://www.amazon.com/Experience-Economy-Theater-Every-Business/dp/0875848192).  Just like Disney people love their products because of how they make them FEEL.  Using an iPhone, or an iPad is magical.  Doing boring stuff like reading email, surfing the web, etc. has become fun again.  Plus you get amazing stuff like &quot;playing scrabble&quot;:http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/scrabble/id284815117?mt=8 with an iPhone as your tile rack (flick the tile off your iPhone and it appears on the board) or driving games played with the accelerometer, or games that use the GPS, and on and on.  Apple builds hardware and writes software to make magic and provide an experience for their users and clearly it&apos;s working as the demand for their products is incredibly high (&quot;86million iPhone OS&quot;:http://db.tidbits.com/article/11176 products sold?!?)  To that end Apple should exert as much control over the platform as they can so that they can keep the experience magical.  If whiny developers don&apos;t want to work within those constraints and can&apos;t be bothered to (re)write their application on the platform Apple is providing, I have no problem with that; they&apos;re probably not writing an application that&apos;s magical anyhow.</description>
         <link>http://blog.aharbick.com/2010/04/apple_is_an_experience_company.html</link>
         <guid>http://blog.aharbick.com/2010/04/apple_is_an_experience_company.html</guid>
        
        
         <pubDate>Tue, 13 Apr 2010 08:47:48 -0500</pubDate>
      </item>
      
      <item>
         <title>Complexity</title>
         <description><![CDATA[<p>Why are computers so hard?  I ended up fiddling with iTunes again this morning .  This time it was with a bunch of Music files that for some reason had an invisibility flag set on them.  Were it not for the fact that I was working in a terminal with primitive terminal tools I would've NEVER known that those files existed aside from the fact that a huge chunk of my disk was gone.  The problem with them being hidden though is that iTunes wouldn't pick them up so large chunks of my music library appeared to be missing (e.g. almost all of Radiohead).  I ended up running an arcane command "chflags" on my whole music directory to unhide those files.  Seriously?  On a Mac?  "<a href="http://www.apple.com/macosx/">Better, faster, easier</a>?"  There's no way on earth most computer users would've figured that one out.  Granted most computer users wouldn't have had my problem because I was copying files around onto/from a network drive, but I didn't do anything terribly advanced and I can imagine users getting tripped up by this.</p>

<p>The problem, I think, is that in computers/software we work harder to <a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=hide+complexity&amp;ie=utf-8&amp;oe=utf-8&amp;aq=t&amp;rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&amp;client=firefox-a">hide complexity</a> than we do to <a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=remove+complexity&amp;ie=utf-8&amp;oe=utf-8&amp;aq=t&amp;rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&amp;client=firefox-a">remove complexity</a>.  We thrive on <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstraction_%28computer_science%29">abstraction</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encapsulation_%28computer_science%29#Encapsulation">encapsulation</a> and the result frankly is magical when you think about it.  The number of lines of code that cooperate for me to type this alone is staggering (code in the operating system managing memory, and disk, and network layers... code in my web browser... code in the device drivers that collect my keystrokes... code in the display driver that powers my monitor... you get the picture).  Generally we're entirely insulated from all of that hidden complexity, but when the abstraction fails the result is painful.  What would it look like if we spent more time throwing away code and removing layers than we did writing new code?</p>

<p>What if smart people sat down and wrote an operating system and focused like a laser on keeping things simple?  What if they built it with a child in mind, or with a grand parent, or another novice computer user in mind?  What if they sought to control rather than abstract complexity?</p>

<p>Take for example "hidden" files.  Why on earth do we need hidden files?  It's more likely than not that real users have NEVER used that feature and instead have only been hurt by that feature.  That feature exists as an attempt to encapsulate system files.  Microsoft/Apple said "hmmm all of these files in /System or in C:\windows look pretty scary and users would be pretty messed up if they deleted them.  what can we do?"  And the abstraction of hidden files was born.  So rather than reducing the need for those files (can't eliminate entirely obviously), or putting them in one location which is never shown, or archiving the files together in one bundle and hiding that....  we got file-level hiding, and beautiful but useless encapsulation that hid complexity but didn't reduce it and it sits there waiting to bite.</p>]]></description>
         <link>http://blog.aharbick.com/2010/03/complexity.html</link>
         <guid>http://blog.aharbick.com/2010/03/complexity.html</guid>
        
        
         <pubDate>Wed, 24 Mar 2010 06:41:37 -0500</pubDate>
      </item>
      
      <item>
         <title>Hugely Entertaining and Insightful</title>
         <description><![CDATA[<object classId="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" width="480" height="418" id="VideoPlayerLg44277"><param name="movie" value="http://g4tv.com/lv3/44277" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><embed src="http://g4tv.com/lv3/44277" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" name="VideoPlayer" width="480" height="382" allowScriptAccess="always" allowFullScreen="true" /></object><div style="margin:0;text-align:center;width:480px;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;font-size:12px;color:#FF9B00;"><a href="http://g4tv.com/games/wii/index" style="color:#FF9B00;" target="_blank">Wii Games</a> - <a href="http://g4tv.com/e32010" style="color:#FF9B00;" target="_blank">E3 2010</a> - <a href="http://g4tv.com/games/ps3/61899/guitar-hero-5/index" style="color:#FF9B00;" target="_blank">Guitar Hero 5</a></div>]]></description>
         <link>http://blog.aharbick.com/2010/03/hugely_entertaining_and_insigh.html</link>
         <guid>http://blog.aharbick.com/2010/03/hugely_entertaining_and_insigh.html</guid>
        
        
         <pubDate>Fri, 05 Mar 2010 15:59:18 -0500</pubDate>
      </item>
      
      <item>
         <title>Laptop Memory</title>
         <description>I upgraded my MacBook Pro to 4GB of RAM (a whopping $100!) and while this should absolutely be no surprise to me my machine feels much snappier.  It feels like this has to be a psychological effect particularly since I don&apos;t typically have a lot of memory hogs open at once.  However it certainly seems to be the case with launching apps, changing between apps, jumping around Spaces, etc.  It&apos;s hard to tell by reading the old RAM label, but my guess is that the new RAM I put in is faster.  Either way it&apos;s nice to spend $100 on a &quot;new&quot; laptop ;)</description>
         <link>http://blog.aharbick.com/2010/03/laptop_memory.html</link>
         <guid>http://blog.aharbick.com/2010/03/laptop_memory.html</guid>
        
        
         <pubDate>Fri, 05 Mar 2010 06:43:52 -0500</pubDate>
      </item>
      
      <item>
         <title>Automated &quot;Refactor-needed&quot; Detection?</title>
         <description>I&apos;ve been working on and maintaining a site for tracking Cub Scout progress called &quot;Den Manager&quot;:http://denmanager.com (not terribly exiciting if you don&apos;t have an account).  I first wrote the site in Rails almost four years ago.  About two years ago I did a pretty major refactor to reorganize the achievements so that it&apos;d be easier to add additional awards.  Finally, a month ago I migrated the site to the latest version of Rails and made a few &quot;minor changes.&quot;  This latest round of changes didn&apos;t go so smoothly, and yes I&apos;m to blame.  I didn&apos;t buy into the Rails religion completely in 2006 so I&apos;ve got basically no test coverage (I&apos;m working to rectify that now but it&apos;s hard to backfill test on years of work some of which has been through multiple refactors).  But I don&apos;t want to talk about my personal failings in this post ;)

As I was fixing these latest problems I had an interesting thought....  The need for a refactor can be spotted when a small change causes many breakages in different places.  In my case I changed one attribute on a class from a string to a symbol and it broke in dozens of different places (many of which I didn&apos;t spot for a few weeks because of missing test coverage).  Had I had better coverage I wondered if you could build a system that monkeyed with code and intentionally introduced random bugs and then counted the number of breakages.  You&apos;d run a system like this in a CI type environment and you&apos;d report up bugs in a particular module and how many failures it triggered.  Sorting by the number of failures and you have potentially interesting candidates for refactoring.</description>
         <link>http://blog.aharbick.com/2010/03/automated_refactorneeded_detec.html</link>
         <guid>http://blog.aharbick.com/2010/03/automated_refactorneeded_detec.html</guid>
        
        
         <pubDate>Wed, 03 Mar 2010 00:13:33 -0500</pubDate>
      </item>
      
      <item>
         <title>iPad Keynote</title>
         <description>I just got around to watching Steve&apos;s &quot;keynote for the iPad&quot;:http://events.apple.com.edgesuite.net/1001q3f8hhr/event/index.html and, while I confess that I&apos;m a card carrying Apple zealot (two laptops, a mini, two iPhones, a bunch of iPods, and a Cinema display), it was a bit silly how often Steve said &quot;in the palm of your hand&quot;  The other thing that I found interesting was that within the first minute of the presentation, while browsing the web he demoed how Apple products don&apos;t play nicely with Flash.  Hard to day if it was an intentional (though subtle) dig at Adobe or if it wasn&apos;t a terribly well planned demo.  If it was a dig it&apos;s not clear that customers will see it that way.  Average users (the kind of users who have been Apple&apos;s key to success historically... &quot;it&apos;s so easy&quot;) don&apos;t give a rip if it&apos;s built in Flash or HTML5 or Obj-C so honestly, that the NYT site uses Flash and doesn&apos;t work on the iPad just makes it look like the device doesn&apos;t work.</description>
         <link>http://blog.aharbick.com/2010/03/ipad_keynote.html</link>
         <guid>http://blog.aharbick.com/2010/03/ipad_keynote.html</guid>
        
          <category domain="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category">Technology</category>
        
        
         <pubDate>Wed, 03 Mar 2010 00:04:37 -0500</pubDate>
      </item>
      
      <item>
         <title>43 Things Personality Test</title>
         <description><![CDATA[<div style="line-height: 1.5em; font-size: 13px; background: url('http://static.43things.com/images/book/quiz_bkg.jpg') no-repeat; width: 500px; height: 160px; padding: 45px 0 0 140px;">I took the 43 Things Personality Quiz and found out I'm a<br /><div><strong>Spiritual Creative Tree Hugger</strong></div><div><a href="http://www.43things.com/book#quiz"><img src='http://static.43things.com/images/book/take_quiz_small.gif' /></a> <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Dream-List-Do-Experts-43Things-com/dp/0761151265" style="background:none;"><img src='http://static.43things.com/images/book/buy_book_small.gif' /></a></div></div>]]></description>
         <link>http://blog.aharbick.com/2009/03/43_things_personality_test.html</link>
         <guid>http://blog.aharbick.com/2009/03/43_things_personality_test.html</guid>
        
          <category domain="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category">Technology</category>
        
        
         <pubDate>Thu, 19 Mar 2009 17:36:55 -0500</pubDate>
      </item>
      
      <item>
         <title>Ticketmaster Is Evil</title>
         <description>I&apos;m sure this is not the first time that I&apos;ve said this, but I just bought some Merriwether Post Pavillion Lawn tickets to go see the Decemeberists in June.  The tickets were $30/ea.  Ticket master has the following mandatory charges:

 * $8.55 per order ticket &quot;convenience charge&quot;
 * $4 per order

Furthermore, the only free delivery mechanism is US mail.  If you have them e-mail you the tickets (assumably a PDF like they do at some sporting events) you have to pay an additional $4.95!!!  Want to get insurance in case you can&apos;t make it for the show $6.

So for my $60 of concert money I spent $21.05 and if I had wanted to print the tickets and get insurance it would&apos;ve been $32!  As much as one of the tickets itself.

I know they&apos;re a business, etc. etc.  But these prices seem ridiculous given the nature of the service.  I&apos;m certain that things would be different if they had some competitive pressure.</description>
         <link>http://blog.aharbick.com/2009/03/ticketmaster_is_evil.html</link>
         <guid>http://blog.aharbick.com/2009/03/ticketmaster_is_evil.html</guid>
        
          <category domain="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category">Thoughts</category>
        
        
         <pubDate>Sat, 07 Mar 2009 10:13:41 -0500</pubDate>
      </item>
      
      <item>
         <title>McDonaldization of America</title>
         <description>This has been brewing since Thanksgiving...  I&apos;ve been thinking a lot about local Economy (after reading stuff by Wendell Berry and Bill McKibben), globalization, peak oil, etc.  On our trip home from Plymouth, MA after Thanksgiving I was particularly sick of the fact that it is difficult to eat good food at a local establishment when you&apos;re travelling.  So armed with my brother-in-law&apos;s Nuvi I *commited* to eating dinner at some place local.

We were near Wilkes-Barre / Plains on I-81 in Pennsylvania and there appeared to be lots of options.  Here&apos;s what we tried.

* Chicken Coop (out of business)
* That Dough Guy (out of business)
* Two Gals Pizza and Subs (closed)
* Antony&apos;s Giant Hot Dog (closed)
* Michael&apos;s Family Restaurant (closed)

After 30 minutes of trying we gave up and ended, in defeat, eating at Subway (at least it was marginally healhy).  The subway closed at 10PM!

McDonald&apos;s within 10 miles: *9*!!!!</description>
         <link>http://blog.aharbick.com/2009/02/mcdonaldization_of_america.html</link>
         <guid>http://blog.aharbick.com/2009/02/mcdonaldization_of_america.html</guid>
        
          <category domain="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category">Thoughts</category>
        
        
         <pubDate>Fri, 27 Feb 2009 11:07:42 -0500</pubDate>
      </item>
      
      <item>
         <title>Massive Small-scale Conservation</title>
         <description>It&apos;s been a while since I&apos;ve said anything here (almost a year!) but recently I&apos;ve had a bunch of thoughts about conservation, local economy, sustainability, environment etc. with the election of President Obama, the turbulence in the financial markets and unprecedented government involvement in the free market.  My friend Don gave me a book called Deep Economy too and after reading only the first couple of pages I&apos;m SURE I&apos;ll have a bunch more to say.  Stay tuned...

That said, here&apos;s my first installment.

I&apos;ve been wrestling with how to power my cabin.  It&apos;s a long and involved story and I won&apos;t bore you with the details.  In a nutshell getting grid-power (which was supposed to be provided to me by the originally land developer) will cost me around $15k so I started looking into alternative solutions (solar, wind, propane generator, etc.).  In doing so one thing has become clear and that is a typical grid-based electrical household uses A LOT of energy (if my household is typical)  To provide the same wattage to your house in the form or solar would require a significant amount of money (I&apos;d guess well over $100k).  Some packages that I&apos;ve looked at seem great but they all produce a small amount of watts (less than 1000W) and they way they make it work is by using DC current.  I&apos;m far from an expert but the reason for this is that is solar generation only happens when the sun is up (duh) and so a solar energy system relies on batteries to store up energy during the day for use as night and batteries are DC.  Furthermore DC is much more energy efficient than AC because AC requires stepping the voltage up to very high voltages for transmission and then stepping it down to use in your house.  In fact all of those big bricks that you have for your electronics in your house....  That&apos;s what they&apos;re doing; stepping down the 120V AC power coming out of your wall down to 12V power to go into your wireless phone, laptop, etc. (read this &quot;great idea&quot;:http://www.globalideasbank.org/site/bank/idea.php?ideaId=5664 for more insights).  So to keep your house on AC current with a solar energy system you&apos;d have to use an inverter to turn the DC current into AC (like the things you can buy for your car cigarette lighter that provides 120V plugs) but that is inefficient and even if it were perfectly efficient you&apos;d get something like 1000W enough to power a fridge and 6 100W lightbulbs.  Forget your air conditioning and heating, television/DVD, computer, dish washer, clothes washer, dryer, etc.

But, the point of this post isn&apos;t to complain about how much energy a typical home uses...  Instead as I was thinking about this problem I looked at compact fluorescent lights and started thinking about the electricity required by *one* 100W lightbulb.  Generally a CFL bulb requires 4-5x LESS electricity than a standard incandescent light.  This is because incandescent light bulbs make light by generating heat with resistants in the filament and that is very inefficient.  So switching *one* 100W bulb to a CFL bulb would save about 75W of energy *per hour*; plus CFL bulbs last MUCH longer (see this &quot;FAQ&quot;:http://www.gelighting.com/na/home_lighting/ask_us/faq_compact.htm#which_bulb from GE).

That doesn&apos;t sound like much, but it&apos;s a *small* sacrifice to make to conserve energy.  What if we could do that for &quot;every household in America&quot;:http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DTTable?_bm=y&amp;-geo_id=01000US&amp;-ds_name=ACS_2007_1YR_G00_&amp;-_lang=en&amp;-mt_name=ACS_2007_1YR_G2000_B11005&amp;-mt_name=ACS_2007_1YR_G2000_B11007&amp;-format=&amp;-CONTEXT=dt (nevermind the world)?

If every household in America switched one 100W lightbulb to a CFL bulb then we would save 7.5 Gigawatts of power in an hour!  For reference one megawatt of energy is enough energy to &quot;power 800 households&quot;:http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_homes_can_a_megawatt_power for a year (under current energy assumption... i.e. assuming no one switches to CFL).  In other words saving 7.5 Gigawatts is saving enough energy to power more than 6 MILLION homes for a year.  That&apos;s crazy (either that or my math is somehow wrong ;)!

How can we not try?</description>
         <link>http://blog.aharbick.com/2008/12/massive_smallscale_conservatio.html</link>
         <guid>http://blog.aharbick.com/2008/12/massive_smallscale_conservatio.html</guid>
        
          <category domain="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category">Thoughts</category>
        
        
         <pubDate>Thu, 04 Dec 2008 08:58:08 -0500</pubDate>
      </item>
      
      <item>
         <title>Customer Service in a High-latency Environment</title>
         <description>A couple months ago I sold some stuff on e-Bay and I got an invoice from them for my seller fees.  I logged into my account and verified that it is setup with automatic payment via PayPal and I ignored that invoice.  Yesterday, I got the same exact invoice.  So it would appear that the &quot;automatic&quot; part isn&apos;t so &quot;automatic&quot; and I decided that I needed to contact their customer service.

Like all customer service these days (even for good companies) you have to wade through a mine-field of options that are structured to stop you from asking a question to a real human being.  So rather that hunting longer for a phone number (or just finding it on wikipedia which I&apos;m sure has it) I just tried out their &quot;Live Help&quot; functionality which is simply instant messaging.

Either they&apos;ve got a few superheroes handling dozens of simultaneous conversations by multi-plexing them or they&apos;ve got a bunch of two-fingered typers because it&apos;s SLOW.  Every question that you ask takes a couple minutes to get a response.  Even still, that&apos;s not the main thing that I noticed...

And that is, that when it takes so a long time to respond, typical courtesies that CS reps use are actually annoying.  For example:

bq. &quot;Hello, Andrew, I&apos;ll be happy to assist you&quot;

bq. &quot;Just a minute while I look that up.&quot;

bq. &quot;Hold on while I transfer you to the Billing Department.&quot;  (the &quot;rep&quot; that I&apos;m talking to should be virtual and they may transfer under the covers, but don&apos;t let me know that)

It seems to me that answers in an IM/chat-based customer service system need to be FAST (why would I go through the hassle of using it if it&apos;s more of a pain that talking to a REAL person) and they need to prize word economy (cut the pleasantries and just get me the answer... I&apos;m not chatting you up because I saw your latest change on Facebook).</description>
         <link>http://blog.aharbick.com/2008/01/customer_service_in_a_highlate.html</link>
         <guid>http://blog.aharbick.com/2008/01/customer_service_in_a_highlate.html</guid>
        
          <category domain="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category">Thoughts</category>
        
        
         <pubDate>Sun, 06 Jan 2008 22:18:36 -0500</pubDate>
      </item>
      
      <item>
         <title>Steve Yegge Makes You Smarter</title>
         <description>I worked &quot;near&quot; &quot;Steve&quot;:http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/ while he was Amazon.  We were on interview loops together and occasionally sat in meetings together etc.  I also started reading his blog when it was just an internal company blog....  I never had the chance to work on his team, but every time he says something publicly I regret that.

In his most recent &quot;rant&quot;:http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2007/12/codes-worst-enemy.html he tackles the &quot;problem&quot; of code-base size.  I&apos;ve done my fair share of refactoring in Amazon&apos;s massive code base, and after having been working in Ruby for the past couple years it&apos;s crystal clear how VALUABLE concision is.  It&apos;s really amusing all of the commenters on the post who say &quot;the number of lines isn&apos;t a problem when you have nicely modularized code....&quot;  They have a point when they argue that Steve doesn&apos;t count the number of lines of code in the kernel&apos;s of our OSes, etc. but generally I think they miss the general point that he&apos;s making which I would characterize as &quot;your language and the expressiveness of that language affects how much code you&apos;ll be responsible for&quot; and &quot;the more code you have the less possible it is to keep it in your head&quot; (reconsider his point about 1M lines of code with 50 lines per &quot;page&quot; being equivalent to a 20,000 page manual.  He seems to echo some of what Paul Graham has &quot;said&quot;:http://www.paulgraham.com/head.html.

Either way, if you&apos;re into software.  Steve is well worth reading and thinking his thoughts.</description>
         <link>http://blog.aharbick.com/2007/12/steve_yegge_makes_you_smarter.html</link>
         <guid>http://blog.aharbick.com/2007/12/steve_yegge_makes_you_smarter.html</guid>
        
          <category domain="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category">Technology</category>
        
        
         <pubDate>Thu, 20 Dec 2007 21:58:54 -0500</pubDate>
      </item>
      
      <item>
         <title>Kindle Review</title>
         <description>A couple of weeks ago I bought Amazon.com&apos;s latest product offering, the &quot;Kindle&quot;:http://www.amazon.com/Amazon-com-kindle/dp/B000FI73MA.  I got it primarily to experiment with a new technology but secretly my hope would be to consolidate all of my reading into one little device.  I&apos;m typically reading 3 or 4 books , several magazines, the Bible, the Book of Common Prayer, and a dozen PDF papers at any given time (obviously not all at once).  The prospect of having them all available simultaneously in a little form factor was pretty cool.  If my experiment didn&apos;t work then I was planning to sell it on Ebay and take a loss if necessary.  I haven&apos;t sold it and I&apos;m not sure that I plan to however it&apos;s far from perfect.  Here&apos;s what I like:

#  I *love* the fact that I can e-mail myself documents and they appear in the device (e.g. send something to aharbick@kindle.com).  It takes PDF, DOC, HTML, and a bunch of other formats.  Many people complained about apparent lack of support for PDF, but it&apos;s just not true.
#  Shopping on the Kindle is pretty flawless though selection isn&apos;t amazing (particularly in periodicals).
#  The screen provides a great reading experience.
#  I love the fact that it&apos;s about the size of a paperback.
#  The search, clipping, and highlighting functionality are great.

Here&apos;s what I don&apos;t like:

#  There is no way to match a page in a physical book with a &quot;Kindle location&quot;  If you have a friend reading the same thing and they say &quot;could you believe page 25!!&quot; you&apos;re out of luck unless you respond &quot;can you tell me a phrase from that page&quot; and then you search for the phrase.
#  Similarly it&apos;s incredibly hard to tell where you are in a book.  There&apos;s the little meter at the bottom of the page that records general progress through the book, but there are no indicators for chapter, etc.  This is particularly hard in reading something like the Bible.  You turn to Genesis chapter 8 and start reading...  The only clue that you&apos;ve moved into chapter 9 is a tiny little &quot;9&quot; and the fact that the verse numbers have recycled back to 1,2,3...
#  Also related is navigation...  Again, this is mostly related to reading something like the Bible where you jump around a lot.  If you&apos;re lucky the thing you&apos;re reading has a Table of Contents.  So from any given page you click the scroll wheel and choose the &quot;Table of Contents&quot; navigate through a couple of pages of ToC, choose one of the chapters and navigate to it.  It&apos;s about 6 clicks and scrolls to jump around and as far as I can tell there are no &quot;Next Chapter&quot;, &quot;Previous Chapter&quot; functions.
#  The display is pretty weak for anything but text.  It&apos;s grayscale which would be OK, but in a PDF (that you mailed to yourself) graphics are often stripped presumably because they&apos;re vector-based and the Kindle can only do pixel-based images.
#  The digital edition of Time has absolutely NO GRAPHICS.  It&apos;s all text.  This makes reading the magine pretty hard when the text refers to a chart, etc.  It&apos;s a pretty poor experience.  That said, reading it made me in the &quot;know&quot; for my other Time-addicted friends.
#  There&apos;s a bunch of lame hardware things.  a.  The battery life isn&apos;t amazing.  You get at most 7 days if you never turn it off.  b.  There is no &quot;lock&quot; feature to disable buttons (big pain if you leave it on while it&apos;s in a bag).  c. the power button is awkwardly located on the back of the unit which makes it very difficult to shut off it it&apos;s in the supplied carrying case. d.  the previous button should be the entire left-side so that right click is next and left click is previous.  Instead the previous button us only the top left and there is duplicate next functionality at the lower left side. e.  It&apos;s WAY to easy to click the paging buttons while handling the device. f. the navigation wheel is hard to use... too easy to scroll and too hard to push (makes it incredibly hard to click precisely).  g. the menuing system is pretty lame. h.  The iPhone is a game changer and not having a touch screen feels the same psychologically as using a 28k modem to get on the Internet now.
#  The selection of materials isn&apos;t that great.  Of the books I&apos;m currently reading I could only get about 25% on the Kindle.  I read a bunch of &quot;theology&quot; books, but even books like &quot;Emergence&quot; or &quot;Cub&apos;s Nation&quot; or &quot;The World Is Flat&quot; can&apos;t be found.  The periodical selection is really poor.  There are only 10 papers and not a whole lot more magazines.  Basically, I&apos;ll have to carry a Kindle and a book for the foreseeable future.
#  It&apos;s proprietary...  Once there&apos;s a better device than the Kindle how do I port my content?  This problem isn&apos;t possible with physical books.

So...  Now that I look at it, I should probably sell mine ;)

I think that Apple could totally clean Amazon&apos;s clock at least hardware-wise.  If they launched an iTablet computer similar in functionality but larger in size than an iPod touch it would be vastly superior from a hardware standpoint.  Perhaps this is the whole end-game of Amazon?  Amazon could be jump-starting a market.  Get people talking about the &quot;future of reading&quot;...  Get people passionate about it...  Apple swoops in a builds a GREAT device and Amazon is there to sell content because they already have the relationships with the publishers....  Hmmm</description>
         <link>http://blog.aharbick.com/2007/12/kindle_review.html</link>
         <guid>http://blog.aharbick.com/2007/12/kindle_review.html</guid>
        
          <category domain="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category">Technology</category>
        
        
         <pubDate>Mon, 10 Dec 2007 08:10:45 -0500</pubDate>
      </item>
      
      <item>
         <title>Wow</title>
         <description><![CDATA["Mark":http://mark.veerman.com pointed this out to me:

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Q5d4rwH1qfU&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Q5d4rwH1qfU&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

Awesome!]]></description>
         <link>http://blog.aharbick.com/2007/11/wow_1.html</link>
         <guid>http://blog.aharbick.com/2007/11/wow_1.html</guid>
        
          <category domain="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category">Humor</category>
        
        
         <pubDate>Thu, 29 Nov 2007 10:30:16 -0500</pubDate>
      </item>
      
   </channel>
</rss>
