Paleo Pumpkin Pie

Over Christmas Jennifer made two pumpkin pies, one regular and one paleo. Here's a photo of the paleo pie, which is the regular pie minus the sugar and the crust:



The key to a good pumpkin pie is to start with real pie pumpkins. Cut the pumpkin in half, scrape out the seeds, and bake it, cut-side down in a bit of water, for around 45 minutes.

Jennifer bakes a great crust from a recipe in Baking With Julia.

Then, follow this recipe that we got from Jennifer's mom:

Mix:
* 1.5 cups pumpkin
* 3 eggs
* 0.5 cup sugar
* 1.25 teaspoon cinnamon
* 0.5 teaspoon salt
* 0.5 teaspoon ginger
* 0.5 teaspoon nutmeg
* 0.25 teaspoon ground cloves
* 1.66 cups heavy cream

(Note: The original recipe calls for a full cup of sugar, but the pie is plenty sweet with only half of a cup. Obviously for the paleo pie skip the sugar entirely.)

Pour into a 9 inch, unbaked pie shell, or, for the paleo pie, into a pie dish.

Bake at 425 degrees Fahrenheit for ten minutes. Reduce heat to 350 degrees and bake for an additional 30 to 35 minutes, until a poker (toothpick or cake tester) comes out clean. (Note: The pie usually puffs up during baking and then settles back down during cooling.)

Cool. Top with whipped cream. (We use pure cream whipped with vanilla, no sugar.) The original recipe calls for pecan topping, but we've never eaten it that way.

We really like both versions of this pie. We thought that, in the future, we'll try increasing the spice load for the paleo pie, but that's not necessary for a tasty pie.

Amazon Licenses Non-Transferable Ebooks

I wanted to find the answer to a very simple question: if I spend, say, $10,000 on an ebook library over a span of years, can I will that library to another party upon my death, as I can will my collection of printed books? For Amazon, the answer is no.

Here's what the Amazon Kindle: License Agreement and Terms of Use has to say:

Use of Digital Content. Upon your payment of the applicable fees set by Amazon, Amazon grants you the non-exclusive right to keep a permanent copy of the applicable Digital Content and to view, use, and display such Digital Content an unlimited number of times, solely on the Device or as authorized by Amazon as part of the Service and solely for your personal, non-commercial use. Digital Content will be deemed licensed to you by Amazon under this Agreement unless otherwise expressly provided by Amazon.

Restrictions. Unless specifically indicated otherwise, you may not sell, rent, lease, distribute, broadcast, sublicense or otherwise assign any rights to the Digital Content or any portion of it to any third party, and you may not remove any proprietary notices or labels on the Digital Content. In addition, you may not, and you will not encourage, assist or authorize any other person to, bypass, modify, defeat or circumvent security features that protect the Digital Content.

In other words, Amazon does not sell ebooks. It licenses them. That means if you spend $10,000 on a library of printed books, that collection becomes an asset that can be resold or willed. If you spend $10,000 on a Kindle library, the value of that expenditure is utterly destroyed upon your death, and the library cannot be transferred to any other party.

And that completely sucks.

Ebooks.com Offers Online Book Viewing

I've been looking into the ebook industry, and generally I don't like what I see at present. The essential problem is that the major ebook sellers, notably Amazon and Barnes and Noble, sell ebooks that read only with proprietary readers. This raises two problems. First, I want to be able to integrate all my ebooks into a single library, much as I can integrate all my music into iTunes now (made possible with the standardized mp3 format). Second, I don't want to invest money in a platform that's going to end up failing in the market place. I don't want a library's worth of the ebook equivalent of Beta or HD DVD.

At the same time, I don't want to buy ink-and-paper books anymore, because my shelf space is limited and I want the flexibility and portability that comes with ebooks. So, for right now, my solution is to simply stop buying books, except for used copies that save a bit of money, books unavailable in digital format, and books that I absolutely want to read right away. The book industry is a mess. When publishers and retailers decide to straighten it out, I will resume doing business with them.

Previously I've made a couple of interrelated suggestions: HTML seems like the natural standard for ebook publishing, and ebook sellers should make the ebooks readable online, via a standard web browser. Now I've found a bit more information about this.

As Jedi Saber points out,"The .epub is a standard for eBooks created by the International Digital Publishing Forum. It consists of basic XHTML for the book content, XML for descriptions, and a re-named zip file to hold it all in. Anyone can make these eBooks, and since they're essentially just XHTML, anyone can read them." (Adobe says basically the same thing.)

Indeed, Jedi Saber proceeds to explain how to generate the epub format. While Jedi complains about the high cost of Adobe's InDesign, which apparently can generate the epub format, I am fortunate to be married to a graphic designer, so this may well be a viable option for me. (I am working on an upgraded ebook version of Values of Harry Potter; an earlier version had been straight HTML.)

I noticed another tidbit from Ebooks.com: some of the company's ebooks "can also read books online, from any computer, anywhere, without downloading or installing anything." Now THAT is sweet.

For instance, Ebooks.com offers the Twilight books "online in eb20.)" An explanatory note explains:

eBooks.com has just released eb20, a web-based ebook reader application. This means that, in addition to downloading an ebook to your computer or device, you can now read the book online from any computer with a supported web browser that's connected to the internet. eb20 requires no software installation and enables you to just start reading a work, seconds after buying it.

In the coming months you'll see more and more of our books available through this simple online reading interface. As books are converted to eb20 format, you'll see a little Read Online link next to the book in your eBooks.com account. Just click on that link and start reading. When buying a book, if you see Available to read online in eb20, it means that, once you've paid for it, you'll be able to download the ebook and read it online anywhere, anytime.

There's just one teensie problem with Ebooks.com (aside from its limited selection): many of its ebooks are insanely expensive. Let's take the example of Karen Armstrong's The Case for God, which I recently downloaded as a trial run from Barnes and Noble for $9.99. The Amazon Kindle price is also $9.99. The Amazon hardcover price is $18.45. Random House will sell you the ebook directly for $27.95, the price for which Ebooks.com also sells the book.

Memo to publishers: if you're going to whine about Amazon's ebook selling prices, you might think about not trying to jack customers with your own ebook prices. Publishers try to sell overpriced goods that are a hassle to use and then wonder why their industry is flailing.

Perhaps one of these years book publishers will catch up to the 21st Century.

Interview with Face's Mark Megibow

Mark Megibow, the percussionist for Face -- the all-vocal group featured this week on NBC's Sing Off -- made some time in his busy schedule for an exclusive interview. My questions are in bold.

Have you noticed any increased interest in your group since the December 14 show? For instance, are your web page views or iTunes sales up?

We have received an enormous response nationwide, not just since the show aired on the 14th, but actually while the show aired. According to the ratings, there were 6-7 million viewers during our segment. Apparently people liked what they saw because we immediately saw a surge in web hits and CD sales. We are getting as many web visits in a day as we used to get in a whole month.

Was the December 14 show live, or was it pre-recorded? (At what point did you guys know you'd been cut?)

The first three episodes were all pre-recorded, so we were actually cut from the show about a week before it aired. Knowing that this was going to be our one shot, we spent the week making sure people were going to watch the first episode so they didn't miss us. We were proud of our performance and wanted people to enjoy it, in spite of knowing the outcome.

Did the show restrict what songs you could sing, or was the decision totally up to you?

There were a lot of factors that went into song selection for the show. The network's ability to get proper licensing for the song was a very objective restriction, and there were many subjective ones as well. We were brought on the show to be the "rock band," so the producers wanted our first song to be pretty straight-ahead rock. Playing to a wide viewing audience, they also required that the song be "immediately recognizable to the general public." There were so many criteria on song selection, we didn't have a single song in our existing repertoire that matched them all, so we had to start from scratch and choose a song we'd never done prior. I would call the process a "collaborative effort," with the final decision resting in the hands of the producers. We chose the Bon Jovi song because we felt it would be one that would show off our full range of voices -- it has soaring vocals, a signature bass line, and a fun, driving beat, so we thought it was the best pick of the options presented to us.

Similarly, the producers had complete control over our image, wardrobe, and even choreography. We had the right to our own opinions, but ultimately it was their show, so they got to make the call. The producers gave us the nickname of "mountain men" and decided that was going to be their theme for our wardrobe. People who have been to our shows know that this is not how we style ourselves, but that's what we were given for the TV show, so we decided to just do our best with what we were given.

Do you have any personal reflections you'd like to share regarding the show, its host and judges, and the other participants?

We had a blast with the other groups and staff while we were out there. All of the groups were made up of great people. We spent a lot of time together being shuttled around, as well as in group rehearsals for the opening number, so we got to know them all. We were tremendously impressed with the staff -- both with everyone's professionalism, as well as friendliness. It was a first-class production from top to bottom.

Is there any chance that you'll collaborate with the other groups in the future, such as in a joint concert in the area?

We would love to see any of the groups again, and we told them all that as we were leaving. Obviously we have to wait for the TV show to come to a close before we can put anything together, but I wouldn't be surprised if we wind up on stage with some of these groups again in the future.

What impact do you think the show will have on all-vocal music? Where do you see the genre headed?

I'm glad the general public is getting a main-stream introduction to how far all-vocal music has come. I think the producers picked eight great groups that will represent the genre very, very well, and that it will attract more people both as performers as well as audience members. The human voice is the most versatile instrument in existence (or more accurately, the most versatile analog instrument). Most vocal groups are still learning that the music doesn't have to be limited to choral sounds. Face has been playing with those sounds for years, and I think even we're still just scratching the surface. Then there are vocal groups that are starting to push the envelope using technology to assist or enhance the human voice, which is opening up a whole new world of sounds and ideas. Purists prefer to hear the unadulterated human voice, but the technology movement has had an effect on all instruments, and it's only natural that the voice be explored in that realm as well.

It seems like most all-vocal groups concentrate on arranging and performing existing songs. Do you think all-vocal groups (perhaps including Face) will turn more to original compositions, or will the strength of the genre continue to be offering interesting interpretations of music first performed elsewhere?

Although the genre of a cappella has become extremely broad, its roots can be traced back to vocal jazz, doo-wop, and barbershop, all of which rely heavily on "the standards" or "classics." As a cappella has grown and expanded into the realm of contemporary and popular music, it's no surprise that most groups continue to cover existing material. In the a cappella world, this is the norm. Song-writing is a completely different skill and you will find far fewer people who are good at song-writing, versus just singing other peoples' work. There are a number of contemporary vocal groups in the country that are singing original material and are presenting themselves as true bands, trying to make it with their own music. Face has talked for years about introducing original material into our set, and we've begun that process. In contrast, we have also found that the audience loves hearing songs they immediately recognize and like, but with our unique instrumentation, so our future will always include a mix of both original material and well-known classics.

Thanks, Mark! Congratulations again, and I look forward to seeing Face's continued rise.

How Stupid DRM Is Killing E-Books

I will defend the political rights of publishers and resellers to use digital rights management (DRM) for electronic books if they wish. I'm not convinced the practice makes for good business. As it stands, DRM is preventing me from buying an e-reader and e-books.

Meanwhile, with my shelves mostly full and without much room to expand my collection of printed books, I'm planning to be selective in buying paper-and-ink books. We live in a mobile society. People frequently change jobs and move. In some parts of the country lots of people spend considerable time on busses, subways, or trains. The market is ripe for e-books, yet the production and distribution of e-books sucks.

This is not a problem of technology. With modern software it is trivially easy to convert a book to an electronic format. (Indeed, practically all books are printed from a digital file.) While I have not used one of the e-readers, I am convinced that the technology makes the text look quite nice and readable. The good Doctors Hsieh have debated various aspects of the Kindle, but they agree the text looks nice. I imagine that new generations of e-readers will be easier to use and more versatile. (By the way, feel free to peruse my Disclosures Unjustly Compelled by the FTC.)

But compatibility issues are hell on consumers. If I buy a Kindle, I cannot even read Amazon's e-books on my Mac, though Amazon has released a PC reader and claims a Mac version is on the way. More importantly, if I buy Amazon e-books, I cannot read them on any competing e-reader (except the iPhone or iTouch, which uses the standard backlit screen rather than the cool text-friendly, low-power screen).

I love Amazon, but forbidding customers from reading Amazon e-books on other readers strikes me as pathetically stupid and short-sighted.

Contrast the situation with e-books to digital music. True, iTunes uses unique encoding, and its songs do not work with other players. But it is trivially easy to convert iTunes music to the standard mp3 format. Amazon might consider the fact that I've purchased mp3 files from Amazon to play on my iShuffle, but I have purchased exactly zero e-books from Amazon because of the compatibility problem.

Meanwhile, Barnes&Noble's e-books will only read with that company's exclusive software. Nook, with an "expected ship date" of February 1, is priced at $259, which is, surprise surprise, exactly what the Kindle is selling for. They are both ridiculously overpriced. The Sony Pocket e-reader costs only $199. It doesn't have wireless, but I don't want wireless! [December 19 Update: I changed "wi-fi" to "wireless" for accuracy. The Kindle is wireless but not wi-fi, while the Nook is both.] I would be perfectly content with a USB cable. The problem is that Sony doesn't sell the e-books I want to buy. So I can get a more-economical reader that won't read the books I want, or I can get a clunky, overpriced Kindle. My solution is to buy neither.

While Amazon is great at selling books, it sucks at producing e-book readers. So why not sell me e-books that I can read on an inexpensive reader made by somebody else? With a standardized format, I suspect that a number of producers would make a good, inexpensive reader.

I understand that some publishers are whining about e-books. Get over it. Publishers have two options: they can adapt their products to the digital revolution, or they can die. Publishers should insist on a standardized format, or at least sell reasonably priced, DRM-free e-books themselves.

Let's take an example. I'm interested in buying Karen Armstrong's The Case for God. Both Amazon and Barnes&Noble sell the e-book for $9.99. But both of those versions have sucky DRM that makes them far less valuable to me. What is the solution of Random House, the publisher (via Knopf)? They will sell you an e-book! The hardback costs $27.95. And the e-book, which does not have to be printed, bound, stored, or shipped, costs... $27.95. Gee, thanks, Random House.

And publishers wonder why people aren't buying as many books? Do you seriously think I'm going to pay $27.95 for an e-book that has a marginal production cost approaching zero and that I can buy hard-copy elsewhere for $16.34? If Random House sold DRM-free e-books at a reasonable price, I'd be happy to buy them, and the publisher would get a much higher profit margin relative to selling through Amazon or Barnes&Noble.

Some readers may have noticed that my own book, Values of Harry Potter, currently sells only in soft cover. But it will become available in DRM-free digital format soon. (Whether it will sell through Amazon's Kindle system or other e-systems remains to be seen.)

Standard text formats already exist. They're called HTML and pdf; you may have heard of them. But God forbid that publishers sell books in a format that consumers can easily read.

Update: After reading several comments, I thought I'd further contrast Apple and Amazon.

Apple started life as a computer company that excelled at making great hardware that works seamlessly with good software. On this platform Apple built iTunes, a retail store.

Amazon started life as a book retailer and tried to build an integrated digital book program on top of this. The problem is that the iShuffle and other Apple players work great, while the Kindle is an overpriced technological piece of gossa. I mean, it's relatively cool, but it's nothing like the e-reader I'd like to buy. (I certainly don't want wireless or a tiny keyboard built in.) If Amazon produced the e-reader equivalent of an iShuffle, that would be one thing, but it doesn't.

Another difference is that, when I buy a song from iTunes, I own that file. I can copy it to disk, back it up, and control the way I use it. If I were to buy a digital book from one of the major sellers, my "library" would be established by the selling company. The seller can alter my library. Thus, it feels a lot more like renting books than buying them, and I don't like that. If I buy a book, I want to buy it and be in control of the file. Screw online "libraries." Just send me the file that I pay for. I neither need nor want Amazon or Barnes&Noble to "manage" my library.

The standardized mp3 format works great for music. Practically any modern digital device will play an mp3. I will buy e-books when they are similarly portable and convenient.

December 16 Update: Another obvious difference between iTunes and e-book "libraries" is that I can import all of my music into iTunes. It will import standard CDs as well as mp3s. Try importing a Barnes&Noble e-book into your Amazon library or vice versa. This is forbidden, which again creates a major barrier to buying e-books in the first place.

Face Featured on NBC's Sing Off

Congratulations to Face, Boulder's all-vocal rock group, for their appearance tonight on NBC's competition Sing Off.

I was disappointed that Face was one of the two bands voted out of the show tonight, out of eight contestants. But those who know Face know that vote is not any indication of their talent or musical force. Guys, your fans are thrilled to vote you back onto our island.

I just noticed that Face's new album, Momentum, now sells at iTunes. If you want to get a better feel for Face's tremendous talent, check out this album or the group's previous two albums. (Forward also sells through iTunes.)

I thought that Face was an obviously better singing group than several of the groups that made it through the first round, though I really enjoyed all of the groups. (My other two personal favorites of the night were the SoCals and Noteworthy.)

I was scratching my head by Face's song selection; they picked "Living on a Prayer" by Bon Jovi. I thought the song is too popular, Face didn't give it any particularly unique reinterpretation, and the song doesn't let the group's vocal strengths shine through. I wondered, though, if the show's producers restricted what songs the bands could sing. If I had made a list of ten songs I'd have liked to see Face sing as their opener, "Living on a Prayer" wouldn't have made the list. Face's fans know the band has some extremely strong "signature" songs that would have been much better for the show (if allowed).

Several of Face's covers I like much better than the original recordings, including "Home" by Marc Broussard, "Calling All Angels" by Train, and "Don't Stop Believing" by Journey. I also really like Face's version of "O Fortuna" and "On the Turning Away."

As an aside, my wife Jennifer made a brief appearance on the show, because NBC filmed Face performing at Nissis, the Lafayette restaurant owned by the same person who owns the design firm where Jennifer works.

I've been a fan of Face since I heard them perform at Nissis four years ago. I was frankly nervous to hear them sing, as I believe they were following the amazing Dave Beegle, and I thought there was no way an all-vocal group could compete with that. Face proved me wrong in a hurry (though I don't know anybody who can match Beegle on an acoustic guitar.) I even began a first and second opinion column for Boulder Weekly with a discussion of Face.

I think I reflect the sentiments of all your fans, guys, by saying that we're extremely proud of you. I hope the NBC show allows a lot more people to discover your talented and inspiring voices. And don't stop believing.