[bookport] Re: new unit proposal
- From: Chris Hill <hillco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: bookport@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 13:14:57 -0500
I think this would be a good idea. All else fails, encrypt the data
from daisy and audible so that nobody can pull it back off the card
and make sense out of it. It may be that that would require way too
much processing power, though. I usually move mp3 music directly, it
is a lot quicker than going via the transfer program and bookport.
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 12:46:56 -0500, you wrote:
>I agree with Bruce. I would love a way to process the flash card outside of
>the bookport, even if we still had to use the transfer tool, at least
>transferring the data to the card could easily be 5mb or more a second. The
>feature of the transfer tool to interact with a flash card reader would be
>easy to implement also, If the programmers are reading, how easy would that
>be? IT would be some user-definable feature i.e. a radio button somewhere in
>the options, use bookport, use flash card reader.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: bookport-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:bookport-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>On Behalf Of Bruce Toews
>Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2005 12:28 PM
>To: bookport@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: [bookport] Re: new unit proposal
>
>But everyone's desires are different. One thing which I learned after
>submitting my wish list a few weeks ago was this. Most people who objected
>to the wish list also had "just one thing" that they would like to see
>added, something near and dear to them that they felt the BP really should
>include. But each one's "near and dear" thing was different, and if you
>added them all up, you wound up with a list much longer than mine. The
>point is that we all have our ideas about what we would like to see in the
>BP. Personally, I think the biggest issue for me would be to find a way of
>speeding up getting material to the unit. For the next person, it might be
>something completely different. But just because I personally have no need
>for a calculator, doesn't minimalize the feelings of someone who wants it,
>just as the lack of a notetaker doesn't make the Book Courier a better
>machine.
>
>Bruce --
>Bruce Toews
>E-mail and MSN/Windows Messenger: dogriver@xxxxxxxx
>Web Site (including info on my weekly commentaries): http://www.ogts.net
>Info on the Best TV Show of All Time: http://www.cornergas.com
>
>On Thu, 15 Sep 2005, Robert Carter wrote:
>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> My only objection to a calculator is that I would rather see the Book Port
>
>> developers use their limited time and resources developing things that are
>
>> unique to the Book Port.
>>
>> Robert Carter
>>
>> At 10:46 AM 9/15/2005, you wrote:
>>> I don't think the resources issue is very important anymore. I use a
>>> dec express but that's because I like the sound of it over the access
>>> 32 which comes with windoweyes. Five years ago this was a real issue,
>>> as somebody always looking for more speed, I don't even buy it
>>> anymore.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 09:55:41 -0500, you wrote:
>>>
>>> > Hardware synthesizers will never outlive their usefulness for one
>>> > unescapable reason; software speech always takes resources away from
>the
>>> > computer, whereas hardware synths can do their own speech processing
>>> > internally.
>>> >
>>> > -----Original Message-----
>>> > From: bookport-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> > [mailto:bookport-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>>> > On Behalf Of Chris Hill
>>> > Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2005 8:49 AM
>>> > To: bookport@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> > Subject: [bookport] Re: new unit proposal
>>> >
>>> > I like the calculator idea. I think the synthesizer idea has outlived
>>> > its usefulness with all the speech programs I know of installing their
>>> > own software speech these days.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 08:22:13 -0500, you wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > Think of how much more useful the unit could be. I know doubletalk
>>> > > would
>>> > > probably charge money for the synth option, but it could all be done
>in
>>> > > firmware, maybe there could be a special firmware users would have to
>
>>> > > pay
>>> > > for if they wanted the synth.
>>> > > The calculator I think should be more considered, it would hardly
>take
>>> > > any
>>> > > extra space nor time to develop at least a simple one; and we all
>could
>>> > > use
>>> > > a calculator now and then.
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > -----Original Message-----
>>> > > From: bookport-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> > > [mailto:bookport-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>>> > > On Behalf Of David Allen
>>> > > Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2005 5:57 AM
>>> > > To: bookport@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> > > Subject: [bookport] Re: new unit proposal
>>> > >
>>> > > Hi Kevin and list:
>>> > >
>>> > > Yes, both have been thought of. Neither is justified in the context
>of
>>> > > a
>>> > > portable device whose reason for being is to read books. If you still
>
>>> > > need
>>> > a
>>> > >
>>> > > USB synthesiser, it is available as the Tripple talk.
>>> > >
>>> > > Cheers,
>>> > > Dave
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> >
>>
>>
>>
>
Other related posts:
