Um, not a good comparison. Libraries pay for the physical copy of the newspapers, and letting someone (or multiple someones) read your copy of something is not illegal. If you and a friend buy a book and share it, that's perfectly fine. No copies are being made.
Now, if the library were storing the content of the newspapers on servers and making it available to multiple people at once (essentially republishing it and providing multiple electronic copies to multiple people), then this would be a different issue. That's what the Internet Archive has done.
I'm don't think it's wrong, but I'm also not convinced that it's 100% legal according to our current law.
Why are you not upset that some government agency(library) or some private agency(bookstore) is recording your purchases, keeping them linked to your information, and not destroying them after they have ensure you have returned the book or your payment has been approved?
Most libraries with automated circulation systems only keep records of what you currently have checked out. Still, I don't necessarily want the FBI looking at what I'm currently reading without a reason that's been vetted, and the USAPA as written pretty much takes that check away.
I wouldn't call libraries a government agency, either.
Remember, a majority of the people who work there are volunteers, they don't need to constantly be worrying about how to re-stock a book someone borrow-purchased.
This is a common misconception, but most libraries are really run by staff and most people you see there are paid. There are a few libraries that are volunteer-run, but they tend to be tiny, poorly funded ones.
Librarians generally have a Masters in library science, and even the people who simply check the books in and out (library clerks) are paid. You'd have to be to take the amount of crap the public can dish out.;)
That said, it's a good point that restocking is a pain in the ass. It is. Every time a patron loses a book in one of my areas, I have to decide if it's worth replacing or if I should get another book instead, and then I have to find a place to get said book (or CD, or DVD. Old magazine issues are a nightmare.). Keep in mind that since this is the public's money I'm using, I have to document every purchase in certain standard ways, so I can't just order things from anywhere without having an agreement set-up or filling out special forms.
Anyways... I order it, it gets delivered, it's catalogued (because if it has a different ISBN, you can't use the same catalog record), it has all the security and location items added to it, it's covered, and finally it's put out for use. The whole process can take over a month, and if a lot of items are coming in at once, it can take multiple months. The processing fee does double-duty: it helps deter patrons from keeping books, and it helps pay some of the cost of the time spent readying a new copy.
Like many professions, I have trouble fitting in all my job duties as it is, and I often do work at home. I don't see a need for the library as a bookstore in most places when folks can order from Amazon.com or go to a local store. Order from them and while you're waiting, check the book out of the library to start reading.
I think we need to clarify something here. MOST libraries are very cautious about patron privacy, and every librarian I know (including myself) thinks the Naperville library is on crack for using fingerprints to use their computers. This is probably not something that Naperville would use because, well, they're insane. But most other, non-fingerprint-requiring libraries might very well be interested. I don't imagine anyone would require you to have the balance of a PC on your card. That's just silly.:)
I certainly think the anonymous cards are a very interesting idea. My library requires ID to borrow materials because if the patron does not return the item, we need a way to contact them and bill them. If we already have the money from them in advance, then we wouldn't really care who they were.
The only downside that immediately comes to mind for me is that sometimes people think they've returned something they have not, and the library sending them an overdue notice causes them to look for the item. Without a means to contact the patron, we'll have to replace more items (which is a pain because of the amount of processing required and the time lag where a copy of the item is unavailable or if the item is no longer available).
In terms of using the cards to access the computers: I don't see why this would be an issue. My library specifically set up our computers so that personal identification is not required to use them. We hope to eventually have people give us their municipality to help us judge computer usage by patron bases, but that's in the future and really vague. Most libraries in the area that do require library card numbers do it as a way to 1) increase sign-ups for library cards (which generally increases funding for the library), 2) charge for printouts, 3) encourage fine-paying by blocking patrons with over a certain amount in fines until the fines are paid down, and 4) share the electronic resources fairly by limiting the number of hours a day a person may use their computers. The last generally occurs in areas where the computers are in high demand and some way of apportioning computer time fairly is needed.
For many libraries, the anonymous cards could be used for logging in to the computers just fine. They wouldn't have fines on them since they are pre-paid, and they would presumably have an ID number on them that would be in the system and valid, just not associated with a particular person. Print charges might be automatically deducted from the card balance. The only problem would be in high-demand computer libraries where ownership of multiple cards might give a patron several hours of computer use and interfere with another patron getting even one hour. Still, some brainstorming could very well get around that obstacle.
The card numbers would also presumeably be good for accessing library electronic databases remotely.
There is the issue of a library's residency rules for using its collection. Some libraries I've worked in have required that a patron live in the state to have a free card because otherwise they're paying no taxes towards the upkeep of the library. However, those libraries simply charged a fee to issue out-of-state library cards. I assume an annual or bi-annual fee for the anonymous cards would solve that problem.
Sorry for the thinking-as-I-type approach to this post. It's just a flatout good idea...
1. Verizon can't actually deliver DSL that works to my house. They're willing to charge me for the service, but not willing to actually get it working. I had DSL for several months and it kept having hours-long outages that they couldn't resolve. To this day they keep sending me flyers to buy their DSL service.
2. If your DSL or phone connection doesn't work, God help you if you have Verizon. It took them a week to send someone out to fix my phone after I switched apartments in the same building (despite promising to send someone every day). I would call customer service, they'd book someone to come out, no one would come. I've never before or since actually screamed into the phone (my brother's) and threatened to call the utilities commission. Unsurprisingly, I didn't have to pay for that hookup.
Additionally, when we attempted to get their DSL, we tried several times to get a technician sent to our place to run tests. They kept trying to do tech support over the phone instead. At one point they caved and sent someone, and my husband took a day off work to be there but the technician didn't show. Three days later (yes THREE), we got a snotty message on the answering machine saying the technician had come (three days late) and no one was there, and please call them back to resechedule a time when someone would actually be there. My generally calm husband spent some time swearing at the answering machine before cancelling the DSL and calling Comcast.
3. In the time we've had Comcast, we've never had any outages. We generally get good speed and no drops.
While I can't give you any information on Comcast's customer service, I have a difficult time believing it could be any worse than Verizon's. Verizon's customer service people are very nice, but you have to wait to speak to one and their hands are tied in actually getting techs to show.
I live in a major metropolitan area. Trying to get a reliable broadband connection to my house was hellish.
I wouldn't be quite so bitter if Verizon (formerly Bell Atlantic) hadn't gotten billions from the state of PA to be able to deliver 45Mbps upstream and downstream broadband to the door of a majority of the state. Ten years later, the Pennsylvania Utilities Commission let them off the hook on that agreement, and I still can't get a clean DSL connection to my damn house.
If a large company that was paid to deliver such services can't manage to do so to someone who lives in a nice area of a major metropolitan area, especially when given ten years to do so, then the problem isn't the size of the country. The problem is the lack of accountability and the ability to charge for services without delivering.
I should also add that to this day, Verizon keeps sending me ads saying I can get DSL to my house. They're more than happy to try and sign me up again. They just can't be bothered to actually deliver the service.
We are not simply robber barons that leech profit off the back of the honest hard working scientist.
That's right. You also rip off libraries.
I'm a librarian. I'd like an explanation for the sky-rocketing price of access to science journals and contracts for bundled journals for a set number of years with no cap on the cost increase.
I believe in capitalism, but I can also tell when you're working the monopoly to screw your customers, and that's essentially what big-name science journal publishers are doing. I have yet to see a believable reason for the insane yearly increases in journal subscription costs.
I'm 21. I've had computers since I was 8, regular internet since about 12. I assume most people do.
Most people do have internet access? Or most have had the computer and internet access you've had? While a lot of people do have Internet access, a lot of people still don't, and most don't have your history of access.:)
I'd also say that most high school students I've helped couldn't form an effective search query if their life depended on it. (I teach computer skills for a public library and help people use the computers in our computer center.) They can handle using Google (though not that well), but any sort of specialized database is beyond them. They don't understand Boolean operators, truncation, limiters, or stop words.
Then again, most people can't tell the difference between ads and search engine results, so it's not like they're any worse off than their parents. They're generally better at analyzing what appears on the computer screen, but I think that's mostly a familiarity thing.
In my experience, people who do well with computers are people who like to work out how things work in life. If something is broken, I like to tinker and try to fix it. That mentality, the "ooo! How does THIS work?" mentality, seems to make a significant difference in how easily people use computers. It doesn't actually have anything to do with careers (I've had mechanics who were terrified and 85-year-old former secretaries who were great with computers. I currently have a 91-year-old housewife who is sharp as a tack.)
I'd rather see a real assessment of the skills required to successfully use a computer as part of regular life - then test for these skills such as pattern matching, ability to follow complex instructions...
Amen, brother. I don't see how this new ETS test would test anything that other ones don't already. The analytical section of the GRE, for example, would probably serve just as well.
I hate to burst AOL UK's bubble, but your average person is bamboozled by specialized terms outside their own experience no matter what the field. Exactly what do they think we should do? (Other than switch to AOL, of course, because it will protect us... if we can get it to stop screwing up our computers.)
We use terms like "phishing" because typing out "faked e-mail pretending to be from a legitimate source in order to solicit personal information for use in identity theft or illicit entry into controlled systems" gets a little old.
It's not like the terms are not explained when used in the general press. They are. And if a person wants to know what something means, they can easily look it up. There are also a lot of basic computer articles from publications like PC Magazine that explain terms. Hell, I offer a free class for the public at my library to explain what different terms mean and how to deal with computer security.
I think there's a distinct difference between saying "People don't know the meanings behind these terms!" and saying "People will never be able to protect themselves because you're using terms that are too technical!" The second is assigning blame for users not protecting themselves. The problem isn't the words--it's that people in general haven't read up on the issue.
I guess I'll go complain to my bank that I don't understand the differences between all the different stocks and bonds available, so they need to change their names to long, explanatory phrases...
Obviously there are other factors at work. I'm not talking about kids with learning problems, but rather your average child.
I didn't expect my comment to get modded up as it was, as it was a rant inspired by working in a public library and dealing with large numbers of both parents and teachers--parents who do the work for the kids and blame the teachers for the grades of their children, and teachers who spend large quantities of their "free" time trying to come up with new and interesting ways to teach concepts. (And yes, there are some terrible teachers out there, but they take a lot of crap for things beyond their control.) As a result, I tend to get really pissy when people flat-out say, "If kids aren't learning, it's the teacher's fault for not making it interesting!" In response, I went exactly the opposite way. Neither is 100% correct.
Really, if we wanted to give some depth to the argument, we'd also discuss nutrition in schools, the sell-out of class time to advertising, infotainment, the breakdown of the family, poverty, safety, violence, bullying, learning disabilities, the removal of outlets like recess, requiring schools to teach basic life skills that should be taught by parents, character education, school administration for ease rather than learning, and teaching for standardized testing.
Of course, I do think some responsibility for their learning needs to be assigned to kids, and often today that isn't so. My original post was simply an extreme reaction that took that idea and magnified it.:) A lovely example of a knee jerk reaction, I'd say.
Let's put more money into better programs and methods for teaching, and wash out the teachers who aren't interesting. Maybe add some profit incentives for teachers?
Why does someone always say it's the teacher's fault?
Here's my suggestion: It's the kid's fault. If you choose to not pay attention in class, that's YOUR fault. No one else's. Enough of the bullshit about teachers needing new methods and ways to make learning fun. Sure, those help, but frankly, if the student has no work ethic, he/she isn't going to learn.
Surprisingly, I found Chemistry to be boring as hell, but I still learned the material because that was my job. Stop pretending that kids should have to be cajoled to learn and tell them it's their job. If they don't like it... fine. They can not learn, but then THEY take the consequences, not the teachers.
I'm not saying there aren't bad teachers, but I've known a LOT of them, and most of them work their arses off and buy things out of their own income to teach kids and yet they're always the ones who get blamed. In the meantime, I see a lot of parents coming into the library and doing the homework for their child without the kid even being present. Yet when Little Johnny fails that test, it's apparently the teacher's fault.
Slightly more on-topic than that rant, computers are tools. They should be used as other tools are: when appropriate. Instead schools often seem to try to integrate them into lessons that are better off not using computers. It's like giving kids Bunsen burners for every lab, even ones that don't involve heat. Too tempting to pass up and usually detrimental to what they were really supposed to learn...
So, the reason that Gutenberg is not used so much is the same reason the library is not.
I'm a librarian. If you think libraries aren't used very much, you must live near some terrible libraries. Every library I've worked in has been having record circulation statistics... That means people are coming in and checking out the largest number of items they ever have. Videos, books, software, CDs, eBook readers... they all go out a lot. I'll also add that our computer classes are generally full or have waiting lists, our public computers are usually full, we're getting large numbers of people participating in our summer reading programs, and we can't hold enough children's storytimes (or chess tournaments) to meet the demand.
However, on the topic of Project Gutenberg, I agree with many other people here. I don't really like to read on the screen unless it's a small, dedicated device, so I don't use PG very often, I'm afraid. On the other hand, it has come in handy for some desperate kids who waited too long to try to find that book they're required to read for class...
Re:It IS harder for them, in general
on
Women Leaving I.T.
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Ah, yes. Scientifically proven.
See, the big problem here is that two people can look at the same data and interpret it different ways, and they interpret it the way they want to see it, even if they are scientists. For example, a famous study conducted by Benbow and Stanley (1980) regarding the math skills of junior high students was widely reported to support a clear superiority of male students over females students. But when you look at the actual graph of the scores, you see two bell curves pretty damn close to each other, and if you remove the prodigies from the mix (which DO happen to be mostly male and rare), the scores for the sexes are virtually identical. That was back in 1980, when I'm SURE women were not encouraged in science and math.
Or how about Gustave Le Bon? He was a scientist who in 1879 wrote: "In the most intelligent races, as among the Parisians, there are a large number of women whose brains are closer in size to those of gorillas than to the most developed male brains. This inferiority is so obvious that no one can contest it for a moment; only its degree is worth discussion."
Almost laughable, right? But it still goes on today... Science magazine reported in 1983 that "Math Genius May Have Hormonal Basis," a story based on the work of Geschwind and Behan, who claimed to have witnessed differences in the development of male and female brains. Well, yes, they did. In RAT brains, where after undergoing a testosterone wash, male rats' brains were 3% thicker on the right than the left. From this, Geschwind and Behan, ignoring an earlier study of human fetal brain development from 10 to 44 weeks gestation that found no sex differences, decided that this was because the male rat needed better spatial skills to watch for other rats while having sex. They then essentially ported this theory and applied it to humans. Great science, chums. What's even more insulting is that Science never published any of the articles, corrections, or letters to the editor that neuroscientist Ruth Bleier sent to them contradicting and poking holes in the shoddy science.
And this is what most people have grown up reading, so it's what they believe, and it's what they pass along. And frankly, if you don't know you're supposed to be bad at math, you're a lot less likely to be bad at math.
Anyways... My point is that before you claim anything is "scientifically proven," keep in mind that we're always discovering and reinterpreting scientific findings, and that any variation between the sexes in ability is much less than the variation within a sex. I know a lot of women in IT who are very good at their jobs. I know a number of women with advanced degrees in math and science. It's certainly not a result of sex that anyone has to be bad at anything.
And frankly, as a woman who has generally scored in the top percentile in math and logic tests, I have a hard time believing I must be deficient because of my chromosomes.
I think a preference for Marx represents thinly veiled anti-Americanism, or at least American liberal guilt.
Or maybe you're a little paranoid?
I think the "preference" for Marx coverage over Franklin coverage in university libraries has to do with the fact that Marx is covered in a lot more college courses. He's in history courses, philosophy courses, economics courses, poli sci courses...
Yes, Franklin was influential in the founding of the USA, but his impact on the world as a whole was not as great as that of Marx. Marx's ideas inspired whole movements and political shifts, revolutions, demonstrations, literature, and a lot of pot smoking uni students.
We're not discussing who is more worthy here. We're discussing how the world today was shaped by ideas, and Marx is one of the absolute biggest names out there. He's rightfully discussed in a lot of college courses and a lot of differing sources on him are necessary.
If you'd like, compare the number of items in a public library. The one I work for has 47 items on Benjamin Franklin and 4 on Karl Marx. Why is this? (I'll give you a hint: I don't think it represents thinly veiled anti-European sentiments.) It's because a lot more members of the American public want to read about Ben Franklin's life, and a lot more elementary and high school kids do reports on Ben Franklin.
A good library's contents are driven by the needs and desires of its patrons. Treating coverage of Marx and Franklin as indicative of the beliefs of librarians is laughable.
Interactive learning has always been known to be better than passive learning any teacher will tell you that
True. That's why science labs are so important. The sad thing is that some schools replace actual hands-on science with computer programs to teach it, and kids simply don't learn as much. They can tell you what they're supposed to know, but they don't see it or fiddle with it or really understand it. (Note: School science textbooks are also terrible at teaching science.)
I'd also argue that while video games are somewhat interactive, they're nowhere near as interactive as reading a book and discussing it with people. Pointing and clicking doesn't necessarily require a whole lot of investment here.
Games can be a useful tool, but the truth is, true learning is often hard. Sometimes you can make it fun too, but sometimes it just takes a lot of hard work and concentration. Games seldom teach anything in-depth. Often they serve more as a catalyst for people to learn on their own. That's good, too, but I wouldn't start relying on games to teach the young'uns of the world just yet.
Yes, but someone saying something doesn't make it correct, even if they're a psychologist, and saying "women are bad at math and science" doesn't address the WHY of that and does a disservice to the women who are good at math and science. Is this trend genetic or cultural? In my experience, I'd lean towards cultural. I certainly wouldn't call it "hard-wired."
Many studies have shown that the way a child's brain is stimulated in the first few years determines how it develops. Areas that are not stimulated enough don't develop as fully. Since female children are often treated differently than male children, I wouldn't be all that surprised to find out that this is the root of the problem. It may not be, but it certainly shouldn't be discounted.
I never had any problems with math and science, and neither did most of my female friends. What I did have a problem with were a few science teachers who said things to my face like, "Did a boy help you with this? Because it was really good." When you're 13 and hearing crap like that, it's a bit disheartening. Despite that, a larger number of women from my high school went on in science fields than did men, and this was a small, suburban/rural school district.
Until we find a way to answer the nature versus nurture question, this is simply a stupid debate to have. You can only argue what the result is, not the cause. It's like saying that African Americans in the 1850s were not as intelligent as whites because fewer of them could read. Saying that women aren't good at math and science is only partially accurate (currently we aren't so hot, career or testing-wise, but that may change), and a president at Harvard should certainly know enough to phrase it differently.
On an offtopic note: Is there a SF writer out there who is more right-wing than OSC?
Depends. If you count alternative histories like Gettysburg as SF, then you can count Newt Gingrich as an SF writer. He might be more conservative than OSC.
That's it. Exploring and building get old quickly.
Depends on your style of play. I find combat-only muds/games boring as all getout after about 3 weeks. I stopped playing City of Heroes because there was nothing there to stimulate my brain.
I still play muds and RPGs and play/read interactive fiction, though, because they provide me with something other than "walk up, attack, move on." I get the most satisfaction out of exploring to find the little things coded in and trying to solve puzzles or work out how something works. I have quite a few friends who feel the same way. We explorers may not have the numbers of hack n' slashers, but we're not insignificant, and a game done well and priced correctly could very well survive.
I'm not playing Tale in the Desert 2 because my husband is and I'm opposed to one household paying for two accounts when we can only use one at a time, but from what I've seen and read, I would probably enjoy it. If I can beat him to an Orson Scott Card-based building game, I'd at least check it out.
But I think you miss the point. This isn't about the evolution of language, it's about setting things up so people can find the information. Librarians deal with this all the time.
Let us pretend for a moment that you have a large number of items that you have to provide subject or indexing terms for so that when people search, they come up with accurate results. Full text search and keyword searching have their place, but so do locked-in subject terms.
Someone has to decide which subject term is the authoritative one so that similar items can all share that term, thus linking them together. (For example, is Gandhi known as Mahatma Gandhi or Mohandas Gandhi or Mohandas K. Gandhi or Mahatma Gandhi-1869-1948?) No two separate people or ideas should share the exact same terminology. Two authors with the same name may be differentiated by birth year or middle initials or similar situations so that searchers can tell who wrote what.
This isn't to say that other search terms shouldn't exist. For example, if Mahatma Gandhi is the authoritative version, an entry should still exist for the other forms I mentioned, each pointing to the authoritative version. That way if someone searches for Mohandas K. Gandhi, they are still pointed to the correct term and can find the items, but every item referring to Gandhi doesn't have to link to every version of Gandhi's name.
The whole process is generally known as "authority control" and it usually bores the bejesus out of people, but it does serve a point. I believe what the blurb was trying to convey was that with all the crazy terms that can be used and no cross-linking or authoritative terms, it's harder to find things.
Does that make more sense now? And are you still conscious after that explanation? I'd point out that at least some of the articles cited in the blurb are from the graduate-level library science arena, so if they sounded hideously full of jargon... well, they were.
Many newspapers charge obscene fees to access articles more than a week old, yet provide free of charge to library patrons access to their entire archive electronically.
Are you saying the newspaper provides access free of charge if you go through the library? Or are you missing a word or two there and mean that the library provides access for no charge?
Just to clarify, libraries certainly don't get the newspaper access for free. We generally pay some pretty hefty fees for patrons to access those articles, so the newspaper is still making money. The patrons don't see the fees, sure, but they're still being paid.
And yes, we pay for electricity and other utilities too, and health insurance, and all the materials in the library. Not that I think anyone on Slashdot thinks we don't, but I figure since I've been asked that so often, I might as well just state it. Just in case.;)
It may not even be the way the cube itself looks, but possibly the packaging using a cube that looks like the trademarked cube for Rubiks Cube. I'm guessing here, mind you, but I see that Rubiks Cube has a trademarked drawing. If Magic Cube is using that same cube on their packaging, it's reasonable that that is trademark infringement. Show the cube from another angle or stylize it differently or something.
Really, without more information, we don't know what was going on.
That said, I still think they should have better things to do with their time. Hell, _I_ have better things to do with my time...
women have purses that they use for _everything_, and carrry around to _everywhere_...
Not by choice.
I have one small purse. In it I carry my money, my ID, and a leatherman. (I'm a geek. I can't help it--a leatherman is just so useful.) If blankety blank women's clothing designers would put POCKETS in their clothing, I'd go completely purseless. It's a pain to have to always keep track of where my purse is and it interferes when carrying other items.
I'd love to see more practical, decently professional looking items for women. I'd be happy to start with a few pockets then add tech gear.
Saying "women have purses, they don't need this" is kind of like saying "men have briefcases, they don't need this." No one NEEDS it, but it would be darn useful.
This is just more of that post-modern victim shit. Some chicks got bent outta shape because a CHARACTER in a GAME set in ANCIENT EGYPT didn't treat their characters like empowered 21st century soccer-moms.
I don't consider soccer moms empowered.
From what I can find on this, it sounds like people overreacted. A developer's plot involved an openly chauvinist character. The world will move on and I'm not really offended.
However, as a female gamer (we DO exist!), I would find this annoying if it meant my character could not advance/benefit the way male characters did unless it were balanced out some other way in the game. I think it's perfectly fine to have characters interact and react differently to characters based on their gender so long as getting the shaft by some characters is balanced out by getting great treatment elsewhere.
I don't play ATITD and can't tell how much this affects characters and their advancement or ability to make money, etc. If it's mostly cosmetic with no character benefits, then it's a reasonable way to add color and verve to a game. If it isn't cosmetic, it still isn't a gender issue. It's a game balance issue. And if game balance sucks for female characters, they'll quit playing. I play both male and female characters, I don't bother to play places that don't let me play both equally.
Slashdot Mirror
Um, not a good comparison. Libraries pay for the physical copy of the newspapers, and letting someone (or multiple someones) read your copy of something is not illegal. If you and a friend buy a book and share it, that's perfectly fine. No copies are being made.
Now, if the library were storing the content of the newspapers on servers and making it available to multiple people at once (essentially republishing it and providing multiple electronic copies to multiple people), then this would be a different issue. That's what the Internet Archive has done.
I'm don't think it's wrong, but I'm also not convinced that it's 100% legal according to our current law.
Why are you not upset that some government agency(library) or some private agency(bookstore) is recording your purchases, keeping them linked to your information, and not destroying them after they have ensure you have returned the book or your payment has been approved?
Most libraries with automated circulation systems only keep records of what you currently have checked out. Still, I don't necessarily want the FBI looking at what I'm currently reading without a reason that's been vetted, and the USAPA as written pretty much takes that check away.
I wouldn't call libraries a government agency, either.
Remember, a majority of the people who work there are volunteers, they don't need to constantly be worrying about how to re-stock a book someone borrow-purchased.
;)
This is a common misconception, but most libraries are really run by staff and most people you see there are paid. There are a few libraries that are volunteer-run, but they tend to be tiny, poorly funded ones.
Librarians generally have a Masters in library science, and even the people who simply check the books in and out (library clerks) are paid. You'd have to be to take the amount of crap the public can dish out.
That said, it's a good point that restocking is a pain in the ass. It is. Every time a patron loses a book in one of my areas, I have to decide if it's worth replacing or if I should get another book instead, and then I have to find a place to get said book (or CD, or DVD. Old magazine issues are a nightmare.). Keep in mind that since this is the public's money I'm using, I have to document every purchase in certain standard ways, so I can't just order things from anywhere without having an agreement set-up or filling out special forms.
Anyways... I order it, it gets delivered, it's catalogued (because if it has a different ISBN, you can't use the same catalog record), it has all the security and location items added to it, it's covered, and finally it's put out for use. The whole process can take over a month, and if a lot of items are coming in at once, it can take multiple months. The processing fee does double-duty: it helps deter patrons from keeping books, and it helps pay some of the cost of the time spent readying a new copy.
Like many professions, I have trouble fitting in all my job duties as it is, and I often do work at home. I don't see a need for the library as a bookstore in most places when folks can order from Amazon.com or go to a local store. Order from them and while you're waiting, check the book out of the library to start reading.
I think we need to clarify something here. MOST libraries are very cautious about patron privacy, and every librarian I know (including myself) thinks the Naperville library is on crack for using fingerprints to use their computers. This is probably not something that Naperville would use because, well, they're insane. But most other, non-fingerprint-requiring libraries might very well be interested. I don't imagine anyone would require you to have the balance of a PC on your card. That's just silly. :)
I certainly think the anonymous cards are a very interesting idea. My library requires ID to borrow materials because if the patron does not return the item, we need a way to contact them and bill them. If we already have the money from them in advance, then we wouldn't really care who they were.
The only downside that immediately comes to mind for me is that sometimes people think they've returned something they have not, and the library sending them an overdue notice causes them to look for the item. Without a means to contact the patron, we'll have to replace more items (which is a pain because of the amount of processing required and the time lag where a copy of the item is unavailable or if the item is no longer available).
In terms of using the cards to access the computers: I don't see why this would be an issue. My library specifically set up our computers so that personal identification is not required to use them. We hope to eventually have people give us their municipality to help us judge computer usage by patron bases, but that's in the future and really vague. Most libraries in the area that do require library card numbers do it as a way to 1) increase sign-ups for library cards (which generally increases funding for the library), 2) charge for printouts, 3) encourage fine-paying by blocking patrons with over a certain amount in fines until the fines are paid down, and 4) share the electronic resources fairly by limiting the number of hours a day a person may use their computers. The last generally occurs in areas where the computers are in high demand and some way of apportioning computer time fairly is needed.
For many libraries, the anonymous cards could be used for logging in to the computers just fine. They wouldn't have fines on them since they are pre-paid, and they would presumably have an ID number on them that would be in the system and valid, just not associated with a particular person. Print charges might be automatically deducted from the card balance. The only problem would be in high-demand computer libraries where ownership of multiple cards might give a patron several hours of computer use and interfere with another patron getting even one hour. Still, some brainstorming could very well get around that obstacle.
The card numbers would also presumeably be good for accessing library electronic databases remotely.
There is the issue of a library's residency rules for using its collection. Some libraries I've worked in have required that a patron live in the state to have a free card because otherwise they're paying no taxes towards the upkeep of the library. However, those libraries simply charged a fee to issue out-of-state library cards. I assume an annual or bi-annual fee for the anonymous cards would solve that problem.
Sorry for the thinking-as-I-type approach to this post. It's just a flatout good idea...
In my experience, Comcast is better. Here's why:
1. Verizon can't actually deliver DSL that works to my house. They're willing to charge me for the service, but not willing to actually get it working. I had DSL for several months and it kept having hours-long outages that they couldn't resolve. To this day they keep sending me flyers to buy their DSL service.
2. If your DSL or phone connection doesn't work, God help you if you have Verizon. It took them a week to send someone out to fix my phone after I switched apartments in the same building (despite promising to send someone every day). I would call customer service, they'd book someone to come out, no one would come. I've never before or since actually screamed into the phone (my brother's) and threatened to call the utilities commission. Unsurprisingly, I didn't have to pay for that hookup.
Additionally, when we attempted to get their DSL, we tried several times to get a technician sent to our place to run tests. They kept trying to do tech support over the phone instead. At one point they caved and sent someone, and my husband took a day off work to be there but the technician didn't show. Three days later (yes THREE), we got a snotty message on the answering machine saying the technician had come (three days late) and no one was there, and please call them back to resechedule a time when someone would actually be there. My generally calm husband spent some time swearing at the answering machine before cancelling the DSL and calling Comcast.
3. In the time we've had Comcast, we've never had any outages. We generally get good speed and no drops.
While I can't give you any information on Comcast's customer service, I have a difficult time believing it could be any worse than Verizon's. Verizon's customer service people are very nice, but you have to wait to speak to one and their hands are tied in actually getting techs to show.
I live in a major metropolitan area. Trying to get a reliable broadband connection to my house was hellish.
I wouldn't be quite so bitter if Verizon (formerly Bell Atlantic) hadn't gotten billions from the state of PA to be able to deliver 45Mbps upstream and downstream broadband to the door of a majority of the state. Ten years later, the Pennsylvania Utilities Commission let them off the hook on that agreement, and I still can't get a clean DSL connection to my damn house.
If a large company that was paid to deliver such services can't manage to do so to someone who lives in a nice area of a major metropolitan area, especially when given ten years to do so, then the problem isn't the size of the country. The problem is the lack of accountability and the ability to charge for services without delivering.
I should also add that to this day, Verizon keeps sending me ads saying I can get DSL to my house. They're more than happy to try and sign me up again. They just can't be bothered to actually deliver the service.
We are not simply robber barons that leech profit off the back of the honest hard working scientist.
That's right. You also rip off libraries.
I'm a librarian. I'd like an explanation for the sky-rocketing price of access to science journals and contracts for bundled journals for a set number of years with no cap on the cost increase.
I believe in capitalism, but I can also tell when you're working the monopoly to screw your customers, and that's essentially what big-name science journal publishers are doing. I have yet to see a believable reason for the insane yearly increases in journal subscription costs.
I'm 21. I've had computers since I was 8, regular internet since about 12. I assume most people do.
:)
Most people do have internet access? Or most have had the computer and internet access you've had? While a lot of people do have Internet access, a lot of people still don't, and most don't have your history of access.
I'd also say that most high school students I've helped couldn't form an effective search query if their life depended on it. (I teach computer skills for a public library and help people use the computers in our computer center.) They can handle using Google (though not that well), but any sort of specialized database is beyond them. They don't understand Boolean operators, truncation, limiters, or stop words.
Then again, most people can't tell the difference between ads and search engine results, so it's not like they're any worse off than their parents. They're generally better at analyzing what appears on the computer screen, but I think that's mostly a familiarity thing.
In my experience, people who do well with computers are people who like to work out how things work in life. If something is broken, I like to tinker and try to fix it. That mentality, the "ooo! How does THIS work?" mentality, seems to make a significant difference in how easily people use computers. It doesn't actually have anything to do with careers (I've had mechanics who were terrified and 85-year-old former secretaries who were great with computers. I currently have a 91-year-old housewife who is sharp as a tack.)
I'd rather see a real assessment of the skills required to successfully use a computer as part of regular life - then test for these skills such as pattern matching, ability to follow complex instructions...
Amen, brother. I don't see how this new ETS test would test anything that other ones don't already. The analytical section of the GRE, for example, would probably serve just as well.
I hate to burst AOL UK's bubble, but your average person is bamboozled by specialized terms outside their own experience no matter what the field. Exactly what do they think we should do? (Other than switch to AOL, of course, because it will protect us... if we can get it to stop screwing up our computers.)
We use terms like "phishing" because typing out "faked e-mail pretending to be from a legitimate source in order to solicit personal information for use in identity theft or illicit entry into controlled systems" gets a little old.
It's not like the terms are not explained when used in the general press. They are. And if a person wants to know what something means, they can easily look it up. There are also a lot of basic computer articles from publications like PC Magazine that explain terms. Hell, I offer a free class for the public at my library to explain what different terms mean and how to deal with computer security.
I think there's a distinct difference between saying "People don't know the meanings behind these terms!" and saying "People will never be able to protect themselves because you're using terms that are too technical!" The second is assigning blame for users not protecting themselves. The problem isn't the words--it's that people in general haven't read up on the issue.
I guess I'll go complain to my bank that I don't understand the differences between all the different stocks and bonds available, so they need to change their names to long, explanatory phrases...
Obviously there are other factors at work. I'm not talking about kids with learning problems, but rather your average child.
:) A lovely example of a knee jerk reaction, I'd say.
I didn't expect my comment to get modded up as it was, as it was a rant inspired by working in a public library and dealing with large numbers of both parents and teachers--parents who do the work for the kids and blame the teachers for the grades of their children, and teachers who spend large quantities of their "free" time trying to come up with new and interesting ways to teach concepts. (And yes, there are some terrible teachers out there, but they take a lot of crap for things beyond their control.) As a result, I tend to get really pissy when people flat-out say, "If kids aren't learning, it's the teacher's fault for not making it interesting!" In response, I went exactly the opposite way. Neither is 100% correct.
Really, if we wanted to give some depth to the argument, we'd also discuss nutrition in schools, the sell-out of class time to advertising, infotainment, the breakdown of the family, poverty, safety, violence, bullying, learning disabilities, the removal of outlets like recess, requiring schools to teach basic life skills that should be taught by parents, character education, school administration for ease rather than learning, and teaching for standardized testing.
Of course, I do think some responsibility for their learning needs to be assigned to kids, and often today that isn't so. My original post was simply an extreme reaction that took that idea and magnified it.
Let's put more money into better programs and methods for teaching, and wash out the teachers who aren't interesting. Maybe add some profit incentives for teachers?
Why does someone always say it's the teacher's fault?
Here's my suggestion: It's the kid's fault. If you choose to not pay attention in class, that's YOUR fault. No one else's. Enough of the bullshit about teachers needing new methods and ways to make learning fun. Sure, those help, but frankly, if the student has no work ethic, he/she isn't going to learn.
Surprisingly, I found Chemistry to be boring as hell, but I still learned the material because that was my job. Stop pretending that kids should have to be cajoled to learn and tell them it's their job. If they don't like it... fine. They can not learn, but then THEY take the consequences, not the teachers.
I'm not saying there aren't bad teachers, but I've known a LOT of them, and most of them work their arses off and buy things out of their own income to teach kids and yet they're always the ones who get blamed. In the meantime, I see a lot of parents coming into the library and doing the homework for their child without the kid even being present. Yet when Little Johnny fails that test, it's apparently the teacher's fault.
Slightly more on-topic than that rant, computers are tools. They should be used as other tools are: when appropriate. Instead schools often seem to try to integrate them into lessons that are better off not using computers. It's like giving kids Bunsen burners for every lab, even ones that don't involve heat. Too tempting to pass up and usually detrimental to what they were really supposed to learn...
So, the reason that Gutenberg is not used so much is the same reason the library is not.
I'm a librarian. If you think libraries aren't used very much, you must live near some terrible libraries. Every library I've worked in has been having record circulation statistics... That means people are coming in and checking out the largest number of items they ever have. Videos, books, software, CDs, eBook readers... they all go out a lot. I'll also add that our computer classes are generally full or have waiting lists, our public computers are usually full, we're getting large numbers of people participating in our summer reading programs, and we can't hold enough children's storytimes (or chess tournaments) to meet the demand.
However, on the topic of Project Gutenberg, I agree with many other people here. I don't really like to read on the screen unless it's a small, dedicated device, so I don't use PG very often, I'm afraid. On the other hand, it has come in handy for some desperate kids who waited too long to try to find that book they're required to read for class...
Ah, yes. Scientifically proven.
See, the big problem here is that two people can look at the same data and interpret it different ways, and they interpret it the way they want to see it, even if they are scientists. For example, a famous study conducted by Benbow and Stanley (1980) regarding the math skills of junior high students was widely reported to support a clear superiority of male students over females students. But when you look at the actual graph of the scores, you see two bell curves pretty damn close to each other, and if you remove the prodigies from the mix (which DO happen to be mostly male and rare), the scores for the sexes are virtually identical. That was back in 1980, when I'm SURE women were not encouraged in science and math.
Or how about Gustave Le Bon? He was a scientist who in 1879 wrote: "In the most intelligent races, as among the Parisians, there are a large number of women whose brains are closer in size to those of gorillas than to the most developed male brains. This inferiority is so obvious that no one can contest it for a moment; only its degree is worth discussion."
Almost laughable, right? But it still goes on today... Science magazine reported in 1983 that "Math Genius May Have Hormonal Basis," a story based on the work of Geschwind and Behan, who claimed to have witnessed differences in the development of male and female brains. Well, yes, they did. In RAT brains, where after undergoing a testosterone wash, male rats' brains were 3% thicker on the right than the left. From this, Geschwind and Behan, ignoring an earlier study of human fetal brain development from 10 to 44 weeks gestation that found no sex differences, decided that this was because the male rat needed better spatial skills to watch for other rats while having sex. They then essentially ported this theory and applied it to humans. Great science, chums. What's even more insulting is that Science never published any of the articles, corrections, or letters to the editor that neuroscientist Ruth Bleier sent to them contradicting and poking holes in the shoddy science.
And this is what most people have grown up reading, so it's what they believe, and it's what they pass along. And frankly, if you don't know you're supposed to be bad at math, you're a lot less likely to be bad at math.
Anyways... My point is that before you claim anything is "scientifically proven," keep in mind that we're always discovering and reinterpreting scientific findings, and that any variation between the sexes in ability is much less than the variation within a sex. I know a lot of women in IT who are very good at their jobs. I know a number of women with advanced degrees in math and science. It's certainly not a result of sex that anyone has to be bad at anything.
And frankly, as a woman who has generally scored in the top percentile in math and logic tests, I have a hard time believing I must be deficient because of my chromosomes.
I think a preference for Marx represents thinly veiled anti-Americanism, or at least American liberal guilt.
Or maybe you're a little paranoid?
I think the "preference" for Marx coverage over Franklin coverage in university libraries has to do with the fact that Marx is covered in a lot more college courses. He's in history courses, philosophy courses, economics courses, poli sci courses...
Yes, Franklin was influential in the founding of the USA, but his impact on the world as a whole was not as great as that of Marx. Marx's ideas inspired whole movements and political shifts, revolutions, demonstrations, literature, and a lot of pot smoking uni students.
We're not discussing who is more worthy here. We're discussing how the world today was shaped by ideas, and Marx is one of the absolute biggest names out there. He's rightfully discussed in a lot of college courses and a lot of differing sources on him are necessary.
If you'd like, compare the number of items in a public library. The one I work for has 47 items on Benjamin Franklin and 4 on Karl Marx. Why is this? (I'll give you a hint: I don't think it represents thinly veiled anti-European sentiments.) It's because a lot more members of the American public want to read about Ben Franklin's life, and a lot more elementary and high school kids do reports on Ben Franklin.
A good library's contents are driven by the needs and desires of its patrons. Treating coverage of Marx and Franklin as indicative of the beliefs of librarians is laughable.
Interactive learning has always been known to be better than passive learning any teacher will tell you that
True. That's why science labs are so important. The sad thing is that some schools replace actual hands-on science with computer programs to teach it, and kids simply don't learn as much. They can tell you what they're supposed to know, but they don't see it or fiddle with it or really understand it. (Note: School science textbooks are also terrible at teaching science.)
I'd also argue that while video games are somewhat interactive, they're nowhere near as interactive as reading a book and discussing it with people. Pointing and clicking doesn't necessarily require a whole lot of investment here.
Games can be a useful tool, but the truth is, true learning is often hard. Sometimes you can make it fun too, but sometimes it just takes a lot of hard work and concentration. Games seldom teach anything in-depth. Often they serve more as a catalyst for people to learn on their own. That's good, too, but I wouldn't start relying on games to teach the young'uns of the world just yet.
Yes, but someone saying something doesn't make it correct, even if they're a psychologist, and saying "women are bad at math and science" doesn't address the WHY of that and does a disservice to the women who are good at math and science. Is this trend genetic or cultural? In my experience, I'd lean towards cultural. I certainly wouldn't call it "hard-wired."
Many studies have shown that the way a child's brain is stimulated in the first few years determines how it develops. Areas that are not stimulated enough don't develop as fully. Since female children are often treated differently than male children, I wouldn't be all that surprised to find out that this is the root of the problem. It may not be, but it certainly shouldn't be discounted.
I never had any problems with math and science, and neither did most of my female friends. What I did have a problem with were a few science teachers who said things to my face like, "Did a boy help you with this? Because it was really good." When you're 13 and hearing crap like that, it's a bit disheartening. Despite that, a larger number of women from my high school went on in science fields than did men, and this was a small, suburban/rural school district.
Until we find a way to answer the nature versus nurture question, this is simply a stupid debate to have. You can only argue what the result is, not the cause. It's like saying that African Americans in the 1850s were not as intelligent as whites because fewer of them could read. Saying that women aren't good at math and science is only partially accurate (currently we aren't so hot, career or testing-wise, but that may change), and a president at Harvard should certainly know enough to phrase it differently.
The joys of broadband :)
We have broadband. We don't have two PCs though. Sad to say we may have to buy another so we can both game at the same time.
Ah, geek love.
On an offtopic note: Is there a SF writer out there who is more right-wing than OSC?
Depends. If you count alternative histories like Gettysburg as SF, then you can count Newt Gingrich as an SF writer. He might be more conservative than OSC.
That's it. Exploring and building get old quickly.
Depends on your style of play. I find combat-only muds/games boring as all getout after about 3 weeks. I stopped playing City of Heroes because there was nothing there to stimulate my brain.
I still play muds and RPGs and play/read interactive fiction, though, because they provide me with something other than "walk up, attack, move on." I get the most satisfaction out of exploring to find the little things coded in and trying to solve puzzles or work out how something works. I have quite a few friends who feel the same way. We explorers may not have the numbers of hack n' slashers, but we're not insignificant, and a game done well and priced correctly could very well survive.
I'm not playing Tale in the Desert 2 because my husband is and I'm opposed to one household paying for two accounts when we can only use one at a time, but from what I've seen and read, I would probably enjoy it. If I can beat him to an Orson Scott Card-based building game, I'd at least check it out.
But I think you miss the point. This isn't about the evolution of language, it's about setting things up so people can find the information. Librarians deal with this all the time.
Let us pretend for a moment that you have a large number of items that you have to provide subject or indexing terms for so that when people search, they come up with accurate results. Full text search and keyword searching have their place, but so do locked-in subject terms.
Someone has to decide which subject term is the authoritative one so that similar items can all share that term, thus linking them together. (For example, is Gandhi known as Mahatma Gandhi or Mohandas Gandhi or Mohandas K. Gandhi or Mahatma Gandhi-1869-1948?) No two separate people or ideas should share the exact same terminology. Two authors with the same name may be differentiated by birth year or middle initials or similar situations so that searchers can tell who wrote what.
This isn't to say that other search terms shouldn't exist. For example, if Mahatma Gandhi is the authoritative version, an entry should still exist for the other forms I mentioned, each pointing to the authoritative version. That way if someone searches for Mohandas K. Gandhi, they are still pointed to the correct term and can find the items, but every item referring to Gandhi doesn't have to link to every version of Gandhi's name.
The whole process is generally known as "authority control" and it usually bores the bejesus out of people, but it does serve a point. I believe what the blurb was trying to convey was that with all the crazy terms that can be used and no cross-linking or authoritative terms, it's harder to find things.
Does that make more sense now? And are you still conscious after that explanation? I'd point out that at least some of the articles cited in the blurb are from the graduate-level library science arena, so if they sounded hideously full of jargon... well, they were.
There are reputable books on colleges. For starters, you could go to Peterson's and look up the name of the college or university.
.
Also, accrediting bodies are okayed by the US Secretary of Education. For more on that, see http://www.ed.gov/admins/finaid/accred/index.html
Many newspapers charge obscene fees to access articles more than a week old, yet provide free of charge to library patrons access to their entire archive electronically.
;)
Are you saying the newspaper provides access free of charge if you go through the library? Or are you missing a word or two there and mean that the library provides access for no charge?
Just to clarify, libraries certainly don't get the newspaper access for free. We generally pay some pretty hefty fees for patrons to access those articles, so the newspaper is still making money. The patrons don't see the fees, sure, but they're still being paid.
And yes, we pay for electricity and other utilities too, and health insurance, and all the materials in the library. Not that I think anyone on Slashdot thinks we don't, but I figure since I've been asked that so often, I might as well just state it. Just in case.
It may not even be the way the cube itself looks, but possibly the packaging using a cube that looks like the trademarked cube for Rubiks Cube. I'm guessing here, mind you, but I see that Rubiks Cube has a trademarked drawing. If Magic Cube is using that same cube on their packaging, it's reasonable that that is trademark infringement. Show the cube from another angle or stylize it differently or something.
Really, without more information, we don't know what was going on.
That said, I still think they should have better things to do with their time. Hell, _I_ have better things to do with my time...
women have purses that they use for _everything_, and carrry around to _everywhere_...
Not by choice.
I have one small purse. In it I carry my money, my ID, and a leatherman. (I'm a geek. I can't help it--a leatherman is just so useful.) If blankety blank women's clothing designers would put POCKETS in their clothing, I'd go completely purseless. It's a pain to have to always keep track of where my purse is and it interferes when carrying other items.
I'd love to see more practical, decently professional looking items for women. I'd be happy to start with a few pockets then add tech gear.
Saying "women have purses, they don't need this" is kind of like saying "men have briefcases, they don't need this." No one NEEDS it, but it would be darn useful.
This is just more of that post-modern victim shit. Some chicks got bent outta shape because a CHARACTER in a GAME set in ANCIENT EGYPT didn't treat their characters like empowered 21st century soccer-moms.
I don't consider soccer moms empowered.
From what I can find on this, it sounds like people overreacted. A developer's plot involved an openly chauvinist character. The world will move on and I'm not really offended.
However, as a female gamer (we DO exist!), I would find this annoying if it meant my character could not advance/benefit the way male characters did unless it were balanced out some other way in the game. I think it's perfectly fine to have characters interact and react differently to characters based on their gender so long as getting the shaft by some characters is balanced out by getting great treatment elsewhere.
I don't play ATITD and can't tell how much this affects characters and their advancement or ability to make money, etc. If it's mostly cosmetic with no character benefits, then it's a reasonable way to add color and verve to a game. If it isn't cosmetic, it still isn't a gender issue. It's a game balance issue. And if game balance sucks for female characters, they'll quit playing. I play both male and female characters, I don't bother to play places that don't let me play both equally.