The Morning Coffee – 1 May 2013

181072_571196569566004_1392641005_n[1]Here are a few stories to read this morning.

  • Amazon KDP Select for eBook Promotion, Yea or Nay? (Lindsay Buroker)
  • Barnes & Noble's Filing Clearly Explains Why The Patent System Is Broken And How To Fix It (Techdirt)
  • Electronic autograph startup eGraphs runs out of cash, shuts down (GeekWire)

  • Feed Wrangler: A Great iOS Reader Replacement for a Price (Gizmodo)
  • I Quit! (The Writer's Guide to E-Publishing)
  • iAnnotate — Whatever Happened to the Web as an Annotation System? (The Scholarly Kitchen)
  • Ingram CEO: Barnes & Noble Should Split, Microsoft Should Buy Nook (DBW)
  • Let’s breathe interactive life into the common textbook (PandoDaily)
  • No, The UK Did Not Just Abolish Copyright, Despite What Photographers Seem To Think (Techdirt)
  • What to Do When Your Web Browser Won’t Display PDFs (TidBITS)
  • Who should get the data from your book purchase? (MobyLives)
  • About Nate Hoffelder (11594 Articles)
    Nate Hoffelder is the founder and editor of The Digital Reader:"I've been into reading ebooks since forever, but I only got my first ereader in July 2007. Everything quickly spiraled out of control from there. Before I started this blog in January 2010 I covered ebooks, ebook readers, and digital publishing for about 2 years as a part of MobileRead Forums. It's a great community, and being a member is a joy. But I thought I could make something out of how I covered the news for MobileRead, so I started this blog."

    8 Comments on The Morning Coffee – 1 May 2013

    1. The article regarding B&N and patent trolls was most interesting.

    2. I have to disagree with the image. According to Enable (https://code.google.com/p/dotnetperls-controls/downloads/detail?name=enable1.txt):

      >grep ie enable1.txt| wc -l
      10270
      >grep ei enable1.txt| wc -l
      1756

      (Still – the difference is smaller than I had imagined.)

      • I think you should have run the test with the “c” included. Your set of results is too broad; it includes words like specialties.

        • Well – isn’t that the point?

          It’s a very rough rule – but in general ‘i before e’ is more common that the reverse.

          • The “I before E” rule should actually be written as “I before E, except after C”.

            What matters here is not the rule but the exception to the rule. The graphic I posted claims that the exception is actually false. If you don’t include the “C” then you’re not really testing whether the exception is true or not.

    Leave a comment

    Your email address will not be published.


    *