[teodaschwartia]

I have the Kindle DX. I like it, although it just sticks to doing one thing and does it well -- being a reader. It's a little heavier than I thought it would be. It has a web browser, but it's more like a technology demonstration than anything useful. The battery life is very long.

Don't know about your second question.

[P3bWjm1j]

gah, you watch porn in public? Or do you use that shitty screen for porn in the privacy of your own home?

Also you don't have to get a DX

[O25YtQnn]

Yes.

[qQVXpYM6]

I wish you'd stop repeating that lie. Studies have shown NO eye strain increase. Seriously. You should know this since you live in front of leds/lcds and hockey television shows.

Proof: http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/0...se-eye-strain/

And let's not forget the Kindle is also annoying as ****. It's interface is torturous for scanning through books unless you go linear, page by page.

[beth]

I dunno about actual medical effects but I will say that staring at a veritable flashlight for hours on end has never done anything particularly amazing for my eyes to say the least.

[markshome23]

Like it lots. Particularly good for traveling, although they make you shut it down (close the cover) for take off and landing, which I guess I should have expected, but still annoys. I, of course, open it right back up when they move away. Then I grumble about making me turn of the Kindle but letting douchebag McGee take on six carry on bags so that my one had to be gate checked. Grrrr.

Pleasantly surprised at the battery life. The flash with page turns takes a little getting used to, but is eventually really not noticeable. Book selection is a little spotty.

[JulietOreira]

I don't know about actual eyestrain or fatigue, but e-ink is far more pleasing to read than LCD. Also, e-ink far far outperforms in sunlight. Read by the pool, read in the car, etc.

[Petwrenny]

Most desktop LCD screens use CCFL. I think LEDs are occasionally pulsed for increased brightness but I am not certain. I think this technique is most often used on things like car blinkers and traffic lights and not displays. However I use this technique for my LED matrix screens in electronics class.

[hubua990]

Is this a joke? You might as well say 'go sit under a tanning lamp for a few hours and tell me how you feel.' Both use fluorescent technology after all.

So do most displays. That's the 'F' in CCFL.

You may be confusing eye strain with what is normal for ANYONE reading for a long period of time. Eyes cannot focus on text for as long as you do -- even if you were reading paper.

[pepBarihepe]

I honestly cannot believe this. You think sitting in front of an LCD will give you a tan?

I didn't say that. Staring at a tanning lamp will also give you eye strain.

[12ZHeWZa]

You will have a headache even if it is the Bible, I swear to god.

Good lord, the bible would give me a headache much faster.

[DrCeshing]

WTF dude. No one is going to accidentally forget the ****ing filter on your fluorescent lightbulb. It wouldn't work as a light very well either.

[Erossycuc]

Please tell me that's an xpost

[Centurnion]

Personally I can roll out of bed in the morning and read until I reach the point of physical exhaustion, it doesn't bother my eyes at all. Then again I don't often read for more than a couple of hours on a daily basis.

Thank you guys for the on topic responses, and thank you Asher and Wiglaf for being yourselves.

[movlabk]

Oh come on, Wiggy, we all have to rub one out sometimes.

[Xibizopt]

Could you provide a list of masturbation accessories? NO. Never mind.

[flienianO]

Fine, whatever, you aren't supposed to respond to post edits by the way . Even though you did you still have not answered this question, which I am going to pose as straigthforward as I can:

Since all that prevents an LCD or LED backlit screen from tanning the skin of its users is a filter, what is to stop monitor manufacturers from shipping their screens without this filter? Presumably manufacturers do not want to maliciously tan their customers, but some might forget to install the filter. But this has never happened, why? What is more, some manufacturers it seems have profit incentive to not place the filter and in fact market a computer screen that also tans users, though it is not clear what government regulations are on this topic. Is this reasoning wrong and if so how and why?

[blogforloversxx]

I know there are already pirated versions of my wife's novel available for download to Kindle, et al.

[AnypecekceS]

Fine, whatever, you aren't supposed to respond to post edits by the way . Even though you did you still have not answered this question, which I am going to pose as straigthforward as I can:

Since all that prevents an LCD or LED backlit screen from tanning the skin of its users is a filter, what is to stop monitor manufacturers from shipping their screens without this filter? Presumably manufacturers do not want to maliciously tan their customers, but some might forget to install the filter. But this has never happened, why? What is more, some manufacturers it seems have profit incentive to not place the filter and in fact market a computer screen that also tans users, though it is not clear what government regulations are on this topic. Is this reasoning wrong and if so how and why?

First: It's fluorescent lights that emit UV rays, not LEDs. Second, fluorescent light filters aren't filters per say. The lightbulb itself is coated on the inside with phosphor. Forgetting it would be like forgetting the engine, wheels and doors in a car. It's not like it's some afterthought. It's a fundamental part of the construction of the bulb. Third, the bulb wouldn't emit much visible light if you didn't have the phosphor coating. The actual bulb emits UV rays and the phosphor coating absorbs them and then emits visible light. This is the same way a CRT monitor works, only the phosphor is absorbing electrons in a CRT. The UV rays are not visible to the human eye. If it didn't have the phosphor, you wouldn't see anything.

[viepedorlella]

Ive been looking at getting a kindle. I wanted it so I could browse wikipedia and import pdf files to read on the move. does the kindle perform these functions well? PDFs need to be converted to really be readable, which costs a few cents if you email them to yourself and use the 3G network. And only a masochist would browse wikipedia (we all know you mean porn) on it. You cant even scroll, you have to 'turn the pages' on the site..

First: It's fluorescent lights that emit UV rays, not LEDs. Second, fluorescent light filters aren't filters per say. The lightbulb itself is coated on the inside with phosphor. Forgetting it would be like forgetting the engine, wheels and doors in a car. It's not like it's some afterthought. It's a fundamental part of the construction of the bulb. Third, the bulb wouldn't emit much visible light if you didn't have the phosphor coating. The actual bulb emits UV rays and the phosphor coating absorbs them and then emits visible light. This is the same way a CRT monitor works, only the phosphor is absorbing electrons in a CRT. The UV rays are not visible to the human eye. If it didn't have the phosphor, you wouldn't see anything. BUT THE PHOSPHUR COATING IS NOT THE SAME ON A BIG FLUROSECANT LIGHT AS IT IS ON A COMPUTER LCD!!! That is my point, is that Asher was lying , the coating is very different on an LCD, it is MUCH THINNER. (In fact it is so thin that some monitors lose it, exposing users to harmful UV rays and tanning them.. Even if not you overlook fact that you can have BOTH phosphorus coated bulb AND non coated bulb, providing both a tan and visibility)