Um, no, not in the case of the Library of Congress. It is mandated by law that a publisher submit two copies of any book published to the LOC, which is then mandated by law to keep, preserve, and make available that work, for the general use of Congrees and the people of the United States. So if most of what has been published in that oh-so-revered medium (i.e., dead trees) is bilge, then most of what is in the LOC is bilge, too. The LOC is by its nature not allowed to editorialize. That's a good thing, too.
Again, it doesn't matter if there are bad books inside because libraries are about good books. In other words, nobody realy enforces you to read bad books. Go to the Internet, and advertisements will be shoved down your throat.
How many trees (or kilowats of electricity) does it take to go to the library and loan a book or two?
To put that on the Internet is like to roll it in the mud
Huh? You mean that digitally scanning a great work (thereby helping preserve its content against the ravages of time) and putting it out on the Net, where interested people can find it and read it (thereby extending its reach and audience) somehow debases it?
We don't need Internet to read or preserve any book. And the Billington's important points is that putting books on the Internet will debase them! (because Internet amplifies the worst features of TV... comercialism,... etc). Also, libraries have much greater accessibility than the Internet.
I guess I'm just odd, but I thought that Great Books were great because they spoke to us, because readers drew meaning from them. In no way does distribution of a great idea make it less great.
This is a naive thinking, because, as you should know, medium is message. So that's what we're discussing, what kind of medium is the Internet. Does Interent provide the reverence for great books to allow the reader to draw meaning from them? Billington here very eloquently, with many painfull but excelent points, answers no.
How can adding materials which you claim to be "good" be bad for such an awful medium as the Net?
It's not bad for the Net, it's bad for the books: imagine Ulyses where at each page you have to first see an advertisement (like here at shashdot) before you can read anything. Putting LOC on any hardware/software would probably be free, and my guess is that more than one company would offer the service. Now imagine advertisements how Microsoft software is providing all the great books to the world. etc...
(...)On the other hand, I see sites such as World Hunger Watch, CNN Online, and yes, even SETI@Home as meritorious.
I don't think that any of these things can compare anywhere near to Ulyses. One sure can see artistically interesting stuff, but things there are still "in progress". I have almost nothing against World Hunger Watch or SETI@home in principle. CNN, however, sucks in any form.
So let's look at those "awesome specs" of Nikon CoolPix 990: 2,048 x 1,536 pixels image compared to $430 film scanner sitting here on my computer (which is by all means old technology in film scanners) that gives me 3409 x 2288 pixels image from 35mm negative or positive, B/W or color. Now, I can go further, and specs don't even tell me the lag time that realy bothered me with my friend's CoolPix I've used (which is the one that got all those "best cheap digital camera" awards and doesn't have red-eye reduction (good for point'n'shooters that they've fixed that)). Why don't you give me one feature of 950 that will beat similarly priced configuration of a SLR and film scanner.
Even medium quality film scanner (say any with dynamic range 3.0 or better) has much better performances than the most expensive digital camera. So you tell me how much batteries and film processing can you get for $10000?
If you actually think of it mathmetically everything has the ability to be broken down into steps (algorithms) and then assembled (programs). Hardware and software are virtually the same. Theoretically you can accomplish anything if you have a step by step process even if that process is long and complicated.
There are some serious theoretical limitations of formal systems.
Oh no, we can't let it happen yet - think about all the precious resources that go into the making of celluloid! Must waste them all first before we change *G*
Get the Nikon CoolPix 950... I can't speak highly enough about the camera. (And I don't even have Nikon stock.)
Hard to beleive! The camera has considerably more complicated commands than SLR Nikon's, very small sensitivity (ISO 50), and, the most annoying thing I've found is that has abnormaly large lag time (that is the time interval between the moment one presses the button and the picture has been actualy taken). For point'n'shoot photographers additional annoyance will be lack of red-eye reduction.
On the top of all this, for $900 one can buy a decent SLR with a decent film scanner and get much better digital output at the end.
Take 'lines' to be 'dots' and you have 6350dpi....
Lines are not dots, i.e. resolving power is not the same thing as the dpi resolution. Imagine taking the same test picture of lines with your 6350dpi digital camera. The picture you're gonna get digitaly depends on how the lines of the picture are aligned with the line of sensors. Good old aliasing will occur. So you have to have more (considerably more) than 6350dpi in your camera to resolve 250 lines per inch.
The end of the post with "Just keep in mind bigger picture...media soundbyte...neighbourhood" is remarkably annoying.
One part of what we're discussing here is completelly answered in the first quote of Billington from the article. It's just so well put that I have to quote it again:
So far, the Internet seems to be largely amplifying the worst features of television's preoccupation with sex and violence, semi-literate chatter, shortened attention spans, and near-total subservience to commercial marketing
This is an extremly accurate overall characterization of the Internet. This tells us that Billington understands very well what kind of medium is Internet. It also immediately tells us that all the nice sites you're talking about are peanuts, and we simply cannot define Internet by them. That's obvious from anybody's (yours as well) description of the Internet -- it invariably starts with "maybe there is all that comercialization, this and that... but there are some nice things too".
When you talk about any librarary, let alone LOC, you start immediately with Joyce, Dickins, Garcia-Marquez, and that's what the libraries are about. Even if we agreed that majority of books there might've been "bilge", that wouldn't have matered because libraries are defined by "good" (to paraphrase Billington). Internet is not and that's the source of incompatibility.
By "integrity" I meant intelectual integrity. When Billington says no to Internet he simply means LOC is too good for the Internet. Elitistic? Arogant? Let's think about it: all those literary masterpieces, practicaly whole human civilization concentrated there, and all that 100% uncomercial and free. To put that on the Internet is like to roll it in the mud. I mean I like Internet a lot, but tell me any five things born on the Internet that, combined, can compare with Joyce's Ulysis. And that is only one book.
When I was talking about your integrity I was thinking of your apologetic rationalizations of the comercialization of the Internet. No pun was intended.
To summarize: To say that the Internet is full of crap is a constatation. To say that any given library is full of crap is a philosophical statement.
(...) But if I am researching a 900 page technical or historical book, then a searchable format would be wonderful. The basic fact is, When in doubt, it is best to go with more access, not less. Hopefully the LOC will go this route before too long.
This is a pretty weak argument: books have Table of Content, not to mention Index, which make searches supereasy. And you don't even need to do any typing, retyping, mouse moving, clicking,... not to mention that once you found what you wanted, you still need to read it!
I don't think this was intention on Billington's part, but read if you will this statement:
He also stated that the Reformation was largely fought with the printing press, and that "media revolutions provoke intense debate."
But this is not a quote of what he said, but of what was written in the article.
The commercial Net might be doing those things. (OK, there's no "might" about it.) But wherein that denunciation is SET@home, or Project Gutenberg, or World Hunger Watch? It's easy to say that letting everyone communicate leads to a lot of noise from riff-raff. But that's part and parcel of the new dynamism enabled by a new mode of communication.
Where are those projects is simple to answer: they are nowhere comparing to the comercial stuff. But you seem to be okay with the comercialisation with the Internet, even inventing euphemism ("parcel of the new dynamism") to somehow rationalize to yourself that SETI and other your favorite projects are peanuts comparing to the real moneymakers.
So it seems that the guy, as opose to yourself, show some real integrity here, since he does not accept the Library of Congress to become another peanut.
"So far, the Internet seems to be largely amplifying the worst features of television's preoccupation with sex and violence, semi-literate chatter, shortened attention spans, and near-total subservience to commercial marketing," said Billington.
First, the Internet is not television. Must as reactionaries and luddites would love to believe it, it's simply not true. Also, even if this is true, it's nothing more than a problem. What do you do with a problem? You fix it. The only way to counter "bad" stuff is with "good" stuff, and if all the stuff he's talked about is bad, then what could be better than to ass whole libraries to the Net?
You hate guy's arrogance, but what about your ignorance? I mean look at your argumentation: First you emphasize that the Internet is not TV, which is not the issue here (read carefully what guy says and you'll realize it's worst than tv), then you go against your own statement. So maybe after all it is tv, you say, so let's fix it, and the fix is to put the libraries on the net. But, you see, that's the whole point of the guy: you won't the make the Internet better place by putting the libraries in, you'll make the libraries worst place by making them on-line, because of all the other crap there.
So far, the Internet seems to be largely amplifying the worst features of television's preoccupation with sex and violence, semi-literate chatter, shortened attention spans, and near-total subservience to commercial marketing
Now, is this the exact state of www or what? He also mentioned something I'd like to quote here:
You don't want to be one of those mindless futurists, (...) who sit in front of a lonely screen.(...) It is isolating. It is a lonely thing. (...) libraries are places, a community thing.
That's again dead on. In US, where pretty much everobody either has everything separate (car, room, TV, cellphone, internet connection) or lives a life of third world subhumans (like in inner-city gethos all over the US metropolitan areas, where Internet hasn't stepped in yet), the "comunity thing" has completely degenerated compared to Europe or South America, for instance.
This reminds me on the interview that Umberto Eco gave to Wired magazine couple years ago (if anybody has that long memory anymore) where he talks about making surfing the Internet a collective, community thing much closer to the spirit of Mediteranian tradition.
Finaly, don't forget the inset:
The Library of Congress's forthcoming web site, which James Billington describes as "America's web site", will be located at americaslibrary.gov, starting on April 24.
Maybe then there'll be better information about what's up with this guy?
I'm commenting on how much pseudo-scientific trolling Anonymous Coward has said in this whole discussion:
"Mach reasoned that the only way to explain this was for every body in the Universe to be exerting a force upon the bucket. This line of reasoning led to Einstein's general theory of relativity " That's not true. Talking about general theory relativity is talking about elevators, trains, photons, clocks, observers etc, but not about buckets. Einsein was certainly influenced by Mach for a while, but then regreted later on in his life. Introduction of Mach principle by the Anonymous seems completely out of context, so sure enough another thread apeared immediately. See my reply on that as well. Now, mentioning Mach is almost by definition talking pseudo-science.
"...Wheeler and Feynmann's transactional theory of quantum mechanics..." There is no such theory. Feyman himself said once that we should accept quantum mechanic because "that's the way Nature works" (or something in this spirit).
distant objects can affect you through various quantum mechanical non-local interactions. There is no such thing as non-local interactions in quantum mechanics, only non-local correlations. The difference is rather subtle and it would take a lot of space to explain it. To claim that distant planets are affecting us through this phenomena is most likely (from the physics point of view) incorrect, due to the so-called dephasing.
"do you think that engineers know every detail about the quantum theory of solids? No, but they can use the results from that theory" This is rather incorrect statement. For instance, engineers use lasers all the time (CD's and stuff) and yet most of them don't know anything about the Bose-condensation, let alone any result of this theory. And, sure enough, it is because they don't need to know it.
"Only elistist "ivory tower" academics would claim that just because someone does not understand an entire theory its results cannot be used" Like who? Give me one physicist who expressed such an opionion.
"The transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics is IMHO the most plausible - certainly better than the Copenhagen interpretation which all of its egocentric insistance on an "observer"" There are other, equally futile, attempts to interpret quantum mechanics. Copenhagen school even attempted to form institutes for studying complementarity in "everything", while for "transactional interpretation" it seems clear only that one person believes in it, and the person most certainly is not Wheeler, let alone Feyman (if he were alive).
On the other hand, Ars-Fartsica's way he described what engineers do is pretty much an accurate description of how physicists usually think of engineers.
It is very easy to refute Mach's principle as the rubish, since Mach's assume a spinning bucket, but, as we know from good old Greek Zennon, motion does not exist. So please tell me how can you spin the bucket if there is no motion at all?
Slashdot Mirror
If there is realy no other way around it as you claim, why not to upgrade the processor?
The bottom line is: those links above cannot be reached.
Again, it doesn't matter if there are bad books inside because libraries are about good books. In other words, nobody realy enforces you to read bad books. Go to the Internet, and advertisements will be shoved down your throat.
How many trees (or kilowats of electricity) does it take to go to the library and loan a book or two?
We don't need Internet to read or preserve any book. And the Billington's important points is that putting books on the Internet will debase them! (because Internet amplifies the worst features of TV... comercialism,... etc). Also, libraries have much greater accessibility than the Internet.
This is a naive thinking, because, as you should know, medium is message. So that's what we're discussing, what kind of medium is the Internet. Does Interent provide the reverence for great books to allow the reader to draw meaning from them? Billington here very eloquently, with many painfull but excelent points, answers no.
It's not bad for the Net, it's bad for the books: imagine Ulyses where at each page you have to first see an advertisement (like here at shashdot) before you can read anything. Putting LOC on any hardware/software would probably be free, and my guess is that more than one company would offer the service. Now imagine advertisements how Microsoft software is providing all the great books to the world. etc...
I don't think that any of these things can compare anywhere near to Ulyses. One sure can see artistically interesting stuff, but things there are still "in progress". I have almost nothing against World Hunger Watch or SETI@home in principle. CNN, however, sucks in any form.
So let's look at those "awesome specs" of Nikon CoolPix 990: 2,048 x 1,536 pixels image compared to $430 film scanner sitting here on my computer (which is by all means old technology in film scanners) that gives me 3409 x 2288 pixels image from 35mm negative or positive, B/W or color. Now, I can go further, and specs don't even tell me the lag time that realy bothered me with my friend's CoolPix I've used (which is the one that got all those "best cheap digital camera" awards and doesn't have red-eye reduction (good for point'n'shooters that they've fixed that)). Why don't you give me one feature of 950 that will beat similarly priced configuration of a SLR and film scanner.
Even medium quality film scanner (say any with dynamic range 3.0 or better) has much better performances than the most expensive digital camera. So you tell me how much batteries and film processing can you get for $10000?
There are some serious theoretical limitations of formal systems.
Now this IS a troll, by any and all means.
Hard to beleive! The camera has considerably more complicated commands than SLR Nikon's, very small sensitivity (ISO 50), and, the most annoying thing I've found is that has abnormaly large lag time (that is the time interval between the moment one presses the button and the picture has been actualy taken). For point'n'shoot photographers additional annoyance will be lack of red-eye reduction.
On the top of all this, for $900 one can buy a decent SLR with a decent film scanner and get much better digital output at the end.
Lines are not dots, i.e. resolving power is not the same thing as the dpi resolution. Imagine taking the same test picture of lines with your 6350dpi digital camera. The picture you're gonna get digitaly depends on how the lines of the picture are aligned with the line of sensors. Good old aliasing will occur. So you have to have more (considerably more) than 6350dpi in your camera to resolve 250 lines per inch.
The end of the post with "Just keep in mind bigger picture...media soundbyte...neighbourhood" is remarkably annoying.
I don't understand why do we NEED mobile HDTV reception!? Can you give us more on that?
One part of what we're discussing here is completelly answered in the first quote of Billington from the article. It's just so well put that I have to quote it again:
This is an extremly accurate overall characterization of the Internet. This tells us that Billington understands very well what kind of medium is Internet. It also immediately tells us that all the nice sites you're talking about are peanuts, and we simply cannot define Internet by them. That's obvious from anybody's (yours as well) description of the Internet -- it invariably starts with "maybe there is all that comercialization, this and that... but there are some nice things too".
When you talk about any librarary, let alone LOC, you start immediately with Joyce, Dickins, Garcia-Marquez, and that's what the libraries are about. Even if we agreed that majority of books there might've been "bilge", that wouldn't have matered because libraries are defined by "good" (to paraphrase Billington). Internet is not and that's the source of incompatibility.
By "integrity" I meant intelectual integrity. When Billington says no to Internet he simply means LOC is too good for the Internet. Elitistic? Arogant? Let's think about it: all those literary masterpieces, practicaly whole human civilization concentrated there, and all that 100% uncomercial and free. To put that on the Internet is like to roll it in the mud. I mean I like Internet a lot, but tell me any five things born on the Internet that, combined, can compare with Joyce's Ulysis. And that is only one book.
When I was talking about your integrity I was thinking of your apologetic rationalizations of the comercialization of the Internet. No pun was intended.
To summarize: To say that the Internet is full of crap is a constatation. To say that any given library is full of crap is a philosophical statement.
What I'm looking for is the PhotoShop plug-in that'll make any document look like XIII century book handwritten by monks.
This is a pretty weak argument: books have Table of Content, not to mention Index, which make searches supereasy. And you don't even need to do any typing, retyping, mouse moving, clicking,... not to mention that once you found what you wanted, you still need to read it!
But this is not a quote of what he said, but of what was written in the article.
Where are those projects is simple to answer: they are nowhere comparing to the comercial stuff. But you seem to be okay with the comercialisation with the Internet, even inventing euphemism ("parcel of the new dynamism") to somehow rationalize to yourself that SETI and other your favorite projects are peanuts comparing to the real moneymakers.
So it seems that the guy, as opose to yourself, show some real integrity here, since he does not accept the Library of Congress to become another peanut.
You hate guy's arrogance, but what about your ignorance? I mean look at your argumentation: First you emphasize that the Internet is not TV, which is not the issue here (read carefully what guy says and you'll realize it's worst than tv), then you go against your own statement. So maybe after all it is tv, you say, so let's fix it, and the fix is to put the libraries on the net. But, you see, that's the whole point of the guy: you won't the make the Internet better place by putting the libraries in, you'll make the libraries worst place by making them on-line, because of all the other crap there.
Here they are:
Now, is this the exact state of www or what? He also mentioned something I'd like to quote here:
That's again dead on. In US, where pretty much everobody either has everything separate (car, room, TV, cellphone, internet connection) or lives a life of third world subhumans (like in inner-city gethos all over the US metropolitan areas, where Internet hasn't stepped in yet), the "comunity thing" has completely degenerated compared to Europe or South America, for instance.
This reminds me on the interview that Umberto Eco gave to Wired magazine couple years ago (if anybody has that long memory anymore) where he talks about making surfing the Internet a collective, community thing much closer to the spirit of Mediteranian tradition.
Finaly, don't forget the inset:
Maybe then there'll be better information about what's up with this guy?
This is a realy silly suggestion. How are you going to digitize, for instance, XIII century books handwritten by monks ?
Some things are simply beyond the reach of the digital.
I'm commenting on how much pseudo-scientific trolling Anonymous Coward has said in this whole discussion:
It is very easy to refute Mach's principle as the rubish, since Mach's assume a spinning bucket, but, as we know from good old Greek Zennon, motion does not exist. So please tell me how can you spin the bucket if there is no motion at all?
Hold on here. I wonder who was trolling whom here?