Google's Library Up and Running
An anonymous reader writes "It seems that Google Print results are beginning to appear on searches. For
those who don't know, Google has been scanning from libraries from some of the world's
greatest universities in order to compile a freely accessible online library. An easy way to turn up these results is to simply type "book", and then
whatever you want to search for.
For instance, book origin of species will turn up the
full text of Charles Darwin's controversial treatise. 20,000
leagues, Oliver Twist and Pride and
Prejudice and m o r e are all there in full.
It'll be interestin to see how publishers deal with this if demand for these
books declines. In the meantime, would anyone like to point out any good books?" Hopefully, Google can also start to index some books that are being released in the Creative Commons/alternative open licenses.
It would be great if textbooks were on there. $120 is too much for a calculus book.
I know this is cliche, but Grapes of Wrath is a classic, and one of my alltime favorites. I've read it four or five times, and it gets better each read. Yeah, it's always in the "list", but it deserves to be.
Another favorite of mine is more related to what /.-ers are about. Read
Player Piano by Vonnegut. It's not his most well know work, but it
is, I think, maybe one of his best, certainly one of his most perceptive.
Just my $.02.
Out of print books online is a great idea, but what I can't understand is why google doesn't have a page that just lists the books they have in full-text. They compare it to a bookstore, but in a bookstore you can see books you have never heard of. You can't do that with google's library because you can only search for books that you know.
So once you've got "Origin of Species" up on the screen, how do you prevent it from highlighting every occurrence of the words "Origin", "of" and "species" in yellow? It's very annoying.
From the Harvard FAQ at: http://hul.harvard.edu/publications/041213faq.html ...
Will this include books still in copyright? Google will be scanning books that are in as well as out of copyright from the Harvard collections. Harvard-owned books in the public domain will be available in the search results. Google may choose to display descriptive catalog information for books that are still under copyright. We believe that Google's treatment of in-copyright works is consistent with copyright law.
If I'm reading this correctly, that Google is placing the text of copyrighted works into a freely searchable and viewable database, it's an amazingly brazen step. It's also incredibly useful, but I can't imagine book publishers lying down for this. Add to this Disney's propensity for lobbying for extending copyrights everytime Mickey Mouse comes up for entering the public domain and I think we're headed for an interesting copyright showdown.
I'm a big tall mofo.
when I clicked the link for "origin of species" the google-book results are links to books you can **buy** with a small number of sample pages to look at.
After the google-books results, you get the ordinary google results, some of which *do* link to online texts.
To find Darwin's book on line to read, rather than buy, just use regular google. Book search seems to be just a commercial venture.
Or am I missing something?
There is an interesting k5 article caled Hacking Google Print.
Check it out.
v4sw6PU$hw6ln6pr4F$ck 4/6$ma3+6u7LNS$w2m4l7U$i2e4+7en6a2X h
Nice list of all the countries mentioned on American TV channels there. And nice way of giving a separate entry for USA. You forgot India and China, the two biggest fucking countries in the world. I live in India and evolution is not controversial here. We learn evolution in our text books and we accept it. And the same case in China. And most other countries. We (non-US people) have different places for religious documents and scientific facts. We use religious documents for religious ceromonies/festivals etc., and we use science for everything else. (You're only giving reasons for why it's *possible* for evolution to be controversial outside USA. You're not giving any proof for that.) Only in USA do people take a religious document literally and try to put it over science and justify it using science. That's what we mean when we say evolution is not controversial outside USA - we don't reject evolution saying that it contradicts our religious documents. And we don't have such a huge group of people so vigorously working for the acceptance of some non-scientific crackpot theory over evolution. So when you call evolution controversial, either admit that it's only controversial in USA or go out of your mom's basement and look around - the world is not what it seems like on TV and over the Internet. Not all countries are like USA.