Here is a short list: Guns, hammers, rocks, knives, forks, spoons, sporks, drills, axes, saws, chainsaws, javelins, baseballs, Windows, Linux, Office, pillows, electronic devices, sheets, bath tubs, lawn mowers, mail boxes, etc.
What do they all have in common with P2P? They all have legitimate uses because they are simply tools, but at the same time they can also be used for crime.
"The provision would allow the Homeland Security Department to require use of the license, or an equivalent card issued by motor vehicle bureaus to nondrivers for identification purposes, for access to planes, trains and other modes of transportation."
Sure, it's not compulsory if you never want to travel. Or you could opt for the lovely nondriver ID card. Wow, what a choice.
I dunno about you, but it's a darn long walk to visit some of my friends.
A library could become a sort of a low cost competitor to Barnes and Noble.
I work for a public library and even I think that's a terrible idea. Barnes and Noble has a right to make money without having to compete with government-subsidized pseudo-businesses.
Libraries exist as a sort of co-op. They purchase items or access to information that is shared by the public. If you want information or to read a book, go to the library. If you want to OWN the book, go to a bookstore.
I'd also say that the concept of really cheap books because of lack of physical inventory isn't guaranteed. It certainly hasn't panned out with magazines or academic journals because the largest costs associated with publishing are for editing and marketing. If you doubt this, read up on the cost of electronic science journal subscriptions for academic libraries.
Regarding the tech support aspect, many libraries have full time tech staff who maintain their computers and equipment (mine does), but many do not and limp by with one staff person who knows how to fix a few computer problems. It generally depends on the affluence of the area. I can tell you from our luck with photocopy machines and self checkout machines though that if you expect an external company to provide and maintain a machine, don't expect it to function well or often. We have more luck with computers because if something goes wrong, there are 4 of us who can fix it. There's also a big copyright issue with the whole concept of scanning in the LoC collection. With physical library items, only one person may have the item at a time, so there's no copyright issue. (No copies are being made.) With a digital version, multiple people can access it at one time. With electronic databases, libraries generally pay enough for access to cover copyright issues and have a limit for access at the same time. With LoC, that doesn't sound possible.
Finally, the upkeep cost for scanned items is huge. A lot of academic sites have been unable to make a go of funding and disappeared. I'm not sure this would work well.
Although I think that Internet access in schools, and libraries are a good thing, why is it that it has to be the Federal Government's job to give them internet access.
Because it's a hell of a lot cheaper to pay for Internet access than it is to make paper versions of all the government information available only online and ship them off to schools and public libraries?
In the last few years a lot of government documents have become available primarily electronically, supplanting the former paper parade. If the federal government isn't willing to help schools and libraries access these items, which the people have a right to view, then they can create paper copies and send them out. Seems to me that's a lot more expensive.
The other thing to keep in mind is that the federal government is not footing the whole cost. They're providing some rebates after the fact. Schools and libraries are still paying for the majority of the bill, and not all of them receive e-Rate funding.
Finally, it benefits the country as a whole to have an educated populace as a whole, not just an educated populace in certain areas that can afford it or have broadband access. The areas able to pay for Internet connections on their own are the ones that need them the least--the affluent areas where a larger percentage of the population has a home Internet connection. In some areas, the choice would need to be made between providing a Net connection or providing for garbage pickup, and it isn't fair to deprive people of government information and access because they live in a cash-strapped municipality.
While in theory I agree with you, in practice, I think the federal government needs to be involved.
Personally, I do not see much reason for the local library to have Internet connectivity for visitors. I always went to the library to get books and media, not sit there and type on some nasty public keyboard.
You're missing something major here.;) This is why my public library needs a public Internet connection:
Libraries provide information. Sometimes the best way to get that information is via the Internet. It's become especially important since many reference materials have gone to an electronic format and since libraries band together to purchase access. (Hence a CD of information at one location will not suffice.) If your choice is between having access to a bunch of electronic databases (such as magazine indexes and business research guides) or not having them at all, wouldn't you choose to fund them? It's a lot easier than reading through each magazine to find relevant articles...
Many government materials are available only on the Internet.
Come tax season, we cannot keep the blankety blank tax forms stocked, and we cannot stock every possible form from every possible state. An Internet connection allows patrons to locate and print out the tax forms they need.
Businesspeople often travel and need Internet access. Public libraries provide that. Same with anyone traveling. Since I've yet to see Internet cafes floating around in this area, public libraries provide one of the few ways for travelers to contact coworkers or families.
You also don't seem to realize that many job postings can only be applied for via e-mail or Web sites. Libraries serve as a place for the unemployed to job search. We also get a number of people needing to register for unemployment claims who have been told by the unemployment office specifically to go to their local library and register online.
Local schools and colleges often give assignments that require Internet use. Public libraries need to have Internet access so that students can do their assigned homework if they don't have a Net connection at home (or don't have necessary software) and can't make it to the school lab during the few hours it's open. (Our local community college computer lab is only open a few hours during the summer. We get a LOT of community college students who need access to the Internet on a weekend or evening because they work.)
Many people need to learn how to use their e-mail account for work purposes, but no one at work will show them how. Our computer center teaches them e-mail basics. Hard to do with no Internet connection. (We also teach electronic database searches and basic Internet skills.)
Some software programs only contain Web-based help.
Our public card catalog is Web-based, so in order for our patrons to search it, we need an Internet connection. It makes no sense for us to duplicate catalog services or code a second in-house interface for public access.
I live in Pittsburgh. Trying to drive around Pittsburgh is interesting because the many rivers and valeys and abrupt hills make straight roads or grids improbable and expensive. The saying in the Burgh is "Sure, you can see it, but you can't get there from here." This means that printed maps aren't always the best way to get information as they tend to be confusing. Oftentimes driving directions from an online source work much better.
Also, if patrons need to find a phone number or address in another city or state, they pretty much need an Internet connection anymore. We do not get all the phonebooks we used to because phone companies started charging us $50 per book. We simply can't afford 1) the physical space to host the phone books, and 2) the cost of purchasing new ones every year or every few years even for the major cities in the US.
In summary, it's cheaper just to pay for the darn Internet connection than to try to provide services without it, and it saves a lot of whining. Spending the money on the Internet connection actually impr
I could theoretically see a private citizen requesting copies of these aerials and other GIS data, and then selling them at his business or through some other private means, and making a profit at the expense of the county (or whatever agency).
And I could clearly see the individual who does that getting his ass sued for copyright infringement. Getting access to something does not mean you can rip it off and use someone else's work for a derivative work. Information can be made available for public use without making it available for commercial use.
There are two issues here:
1. Is there a legal basis to deny the Freedom of Information request? I'd guess no, since as far as I can tell, this does not meet any of the exceptions listed in the Freedom of Information Act. (blah blah IANAL blah blah.)
2. If this information is made public, will it be carelessly used for commercial purposes? Unless the photographers or government members are idiots (and I'm not saying they are or aren't--I don't know), the photos should still be under copyright, and facts (such as who owns what real estate) are definitely in the public realm. So the recipient couldn't use the photos commercially, but the facts aren't copyrightable. The database as a whole, however, probably is. So, the recipient of the information couldn't sell the database itself--he/she'd have to use raw data and create his/her own database for it to be legal to sell it. By the time they've taken public facts and created a system to access them that adds enough value that someone wants to BUY it, then yes, they should be allowed to profit from it.
Now for public access, a few problems exist with this. In general, a private citizen wouldn't have much need for the information so releasing to the public would essentially benefit a very small set of people/companies. The benefit for this small group would essentially be paid for by all tax payers.
I think you miss the point. It isn't whether or not a private citizen would have use for this, but rather that the government paid for it and the information SHOULD be available via a Freedom of Information request. Unless the information meets one of the exceptions listed in the Freedom of Information Act, it simply shouldn't be restricted. That's why we have the darn exceptions in the first place. "I don't think most people will use it" is not an acceptable reason to block access to information obtained with public funds.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that the government fund Internet access to such records for the general public, but the records should be available on request.
If you are concerned about people making commercial use of such aerial photography, I would think such photography would still be under copyright and thus could not be used in such a manner.
I wasn't offended by the "funny way women look at the world" bit. That was obvious humor. I use that sort all the time with my friends.
On the other hand, the write-up says: Most recipes are designed for women, and their funny way of looking at the world. These are very different and instantly understandable for tech geeks like us.
Er... tech geeks aren't women? Women aren't tech geeks? Am I not allowed on here or something?
The obvious humor was fine. The suggestion, though, that women and engineers or women and tech geeks are two different classes is kind of insulting. Actually, I'd probably ignore it if I hadn't just come from a computer show where I asked a few technical questions and the rep looked at my husband and answered to him (including using the word "sir").
Is it the end of the world? Nope. But I was certainly less than appreciative of the write-up. The site, however, is pretty cool. Now if I only could stand cooking...
A directory of all department employees, home phone, address, emergency contact, and home email is an example. This information is not classified. However, I do not know anyone that would want their employer making suck a directory public.
If you're talking a private company, then of course the information isn't classified, but it also is not public. It wasn't paid for by your tax dollars, and FOIA doesn't apply to it.
If you're talking about the government, while such personal information is not classified, it DOES meet one of the other areas specified in the FOIA as exempt from FOIA (personal privacy, in this case, and possibly internal personnel rules and practices). FYI, those exemptions (taken from here) are:
Exemption 1: Classified Documents Exemption 2: Internal Personnel Rules and Practices Exemption 3: Information Exempt Under Other Laws Exemption 4: Confidential Business Information Exemption 5: Internal Government Communications Exemption 6: Personal Privacy Exemption 7: Law Enforcement Exemption 8: Financial Institutions Exemption 9: Geological Information
What's my point? My point is that the argument that some unclassified information should be restricted by the government is fine and dandy, but we've already specified what areas those are. I don't think we need to expand them anymore. I certainly don't want to suddenly start restricting things like satellite images and derivatives yet not classifying them because state employees might possibly need them. I'm all for moderation in restriction.:)
I'm still not following why I should not have access to information 1) categorized as unclassified and 2) purchased by my government. If it's a security threat, then classify it. If not, my money paid for it and if I can be bothered to fill out a FOIA request, I should have access to it.
(To quote from the proposed bill: Compelled release of such data and imagery by the United States under FOIA defeats the purpose of these licensing agreements, removes any profit motive, and may damage the national security by mandating disclosure to the general public upon request. While the data and imagery could be protected from disclosure under FOIA by classifying them, the United States prefers to keep them unclassified. Unclassified matter is more easily shared with coalition partners in contingency operations and with State and local officials in disaster relief and homeland security operations. )
Restricting the public's access to unclassified government information to protect a profit motive is not a step with which I'm comfortable. If it's a security risk, classify it, but don't start blocking access to unclassified information just because you can't be bothered to make it classified because it make take an extra step or two to share the info.
If it doesn't fall into one of the nine exempted areas of FOIA and you can't be bothered to make it classified, we paid for the damn information and should be able to make use of it.
I stand by my original statement despite your obviously uneducated and rather ignorant if not downright rude and trollish response.
"More than 2,000 romance titles are released every year, and the genre generates more than half (55%) of all paperback fiction sales in America. Add hardbacks to the mix and romance still represents a third (35%) of all fiction. Take it one step farther to consider the entire bookstore -- non-fiction included -- and romance novels represent 18% of all books sold." Taken from the RWA Web site.
I do apologize if you felt my post was rude, but the information in it was good (as shown by the above statistics). I'm neither uneducated nor ignorant, and in fact I work as a librarian and have an excellent grasp of what books my patrons are requesting. And frankly, we get a LOT of requests for romances regardless of the socioeconomic class of patrons (though heavily read by women and not men).
If you're going to post something which says "Sales equates to quality in books," then expect people to refute that. I did use strong language, but I never made a personal attack or name called. I poked at your reasoning and suggested it was flawed, and I disagreed with your comment that OotP was a wonderful book. I'm sorry you took that as "starting shit" with you. It was intended more in the vein of jolting you into considering another point of view based on using an example that did not fit your statement.
Sales reflect quality in books, perhaps not in movies or computer operating systems, but in books, people buy what they like. Obviously when the sales don't reflect the nominations, the ones doing the nominating have a bias.
Which explains why romance books sell so well. They're incredibly well written.
Once you've finished laughing over the above, you can drop the "What sells well is well written" logic. The Da Vinci Code sold well and was interesting, but frankly had a lot of plot and character problems. I firmly believe Robert Jordan's work is hideous, yet it still sells well. Like movies, quality is not necessarily about what's popular, but about plot, style, character development, mood, and much more.
Having read most of the nominated books and all the Harry Potter books, I would have voted for either Ilium or Paladin of Souls. The fifth Potter book was not as well written as previous ones in the series, and in fact the first 200 pages were rather like beating my head against a wall repeatedly. There's no way it deserved a nomination in this competition, no matter how much I like Rowlings' writing and the Potter series.
I feel no sorrow for the library. I hope the lawyers get involved and that the library and police face penalties for this.
Why the hell should the library face penalties? They didn't tell the policeman to do anything to harass the man. While I agree that the policeman in question should get a talking to, suing anyone is ridiculously extreme, particularly an institution that was merely the site.
That said, it's perfectly reasonable to assume that a public library's WiFi is available for use outside the library (even if the library is closed) if it's accessible. That is standard at some libraries in the US, and unless there is no access or there's something clearly posted, AKMA couldn't have known.
The library did post a rule after the fact stating that the wifi should only be used during the library's hours. I certainly hope they've learned to shut it off when they aren't open. Overall, I imagine it was an oversight on the library's part to not turn it off after hours.
We'll shortly be implementing a public wireless network at the library where I work, and we expect patrons will use it outside, and we will be shutting it down when we're closed to avoid excessive bandwidth costs.
What happens when one parent doesn't think a book is appropriate. What about when a minority doesn't think a book is appropriate? What about a majority?
Ah, okay. That depends on the school or library's specific policy to handle challenges. They should have one. I think it's perfectly reasonable to ask your school librarian if they have a policy and what it is, and if they do not have one, suggest that one be written.
An example using one procedure I've seen starts with a meeting between the challenging party, an administrator, and a librarian to discuss the issue, or the English teacher if it's an assigned book. If no satisfactory conclusion is reached informally, the challenging party is given a specific form to fill out that asks them to state their objections and give examples. That form and the book are then read and evaluated by a panel composed of both school representatives and parents drawn from the district. The panel may hear comments from both the challengers and the librarian/teacher. They then make a decision on whether the book should be removed, retained, restricted, etc. Some policies involve the panel making a recommendation rather than a decision and the school board deciding the issue.
Now keep in mind that if a book is removed or retained, that isn't necessarily the end of the line. For some it is, but other decisions have been challenged in a court of law.
Examples of cases:
Stevana Case, et. al., vs. Unified School District no. 233: Students and parents sued the school district of Olathe, KS after the superintendant and school board removed the book Annie on My Mind from the libraries in violation of the policies for such action. A judge ordered them returned to the shelves. (I believe this was filed in 1994 and decided a few years later.)
Pico, et. al. vs. Board of Education, Island Trees (NY) Union Free School District: A plurality of the Supreme Court ruled that books removed by the school board should be returned. They said books cannot be removed "simply because they dislike the ideas contained" in them, thereby "[p]rescribing what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion." Books can be removed for not meeting educational suitability requirements. There was also more in the decision about discretion in curriculum for transmitting community values balanced against the school library as a center for free inquiry. I believe this one is from 1982, and it's pretty much considered the biggie for librarians.
Katherine Paterson is also deeply Christian and her books get banned all the time for language, distressing themes, and poor role models. Cuz you know, if your best friend dies tragically, you'd never swear or act out...
I've also heard from teachers who are not allowed to teach or read C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien in classes because they are fantasy and "might confuse children as to what is real." It continues to boggle my mind.
So what's an appropriate process for determining which books are inappropriate for kids to check out of the school library. Keep in mind, schools have certain rights and responsibilities re: kids (locus parenti) that other libarary don't have.
What items go in a library depends on the focus of the school, curriculum needs, student requests, age, reading level, coverage of topics in the current collection, budget, and much more. One thing to keep in mind here is that schools often serve a wide range of reading abilities and emotional maturities, and that materials are going to have to range in topic and maturity in order to meet the needs of the child. If we only had books suitable for 3-year-olds, our 5th graders wouldn't be getting much out of the reading.
Obviously what books are appropriate for a Catholic school versus a public school will differ. Books deemed appropriate or desirable in NYC will fall flat in Podunksville. That's why librarians (school and otherwise) are employed to examine the interests and needs of their patrons and attempt to fill them, as well as to teach good researching skills.
Er, do you want more on how librarians decide? I'd also note that usually libraries have challenge procedures in place, so those who disagree can have the item examined.
The problem is, how do I know if my kid gets a book I don't approve of at the school library? Maybe he reads it there and doesn't bring it home so I'll never find out.
Well, yes, but that's true of anything. How do you know if your child sneaks a smoke? How about if they ride their bike without a helmet? Take off their earmuffs on the way to school? You'll never know everything your child does, and to believe you can protect them to that extent is somewhat delusional. (I know you weren't saying that, I'm just extending the discussion point here a bit.)
Usually librarians make the decisions as to what books are purchased and where in the library they are located, not a committee. That's why you pay librarians, and why they not only have to be certified as teachers but also have a Masters degree in library science. They make them based on curriculum needs, the current collection coverage, student interest and requests, reading level, critical reviews, and sometimes actual physical examination for appropriateness. They also have to consider budget. No matter what the ALA says, most librarians think there are standards for age appropriateness. (I'm a public librarian who has spent a lot of time with school librarians. They drive me nuts worrying about every scene in a book and every swear word. I'm SO not cut out to be a school librarian.)
Most schools should have a specific policy for how a book can be challenged as inappropriate (either for its current location or at all) that involves informal meetings and discussions, formal filing of complaint, and review by a committee composed of parental and school representatives. And really, no matter what rhetoric you read (either ALA or Family Friendly Bullpucky), most librarians I've met will agree that some books aren't appropriate for school (or other) libraries. That's why we have procedures for challenges.:)
Finally, I agree with you about the reality of banned book lists for each child. I can imagine the horror of trying to keep a checklist of what books a child can or cannot check out, and I frankly doubt it would be effective. Have you ever tried to check out seething crowds of children, keep them in line, and carefully read each and every screen? Besides,if Johnny wants to read a book but is barred from it, he gets friend Jimmy to check it out. (I've worked in children's rooms in a public library, and once you hit a critical mass of kids and books, you lose some accuracy. Being human does that.)
And many of them SHOULD be banned. I'd be pretty ticked if my kid brought home some of the books from that list from school.
And while I respect your right to decide what your child reads, you do NOT have the right to decide what MY child reads or what OTHER PEOPLE's children read. Just because you find Bridge to Terabithia to be crap doesn't mean all kids do, and I want my child to be able to check it out of a school library.
Keep in mind that this list does not just reflect school libraries, and that this is a list of challenges to books, not necessarily that all these books have been successfully removed from libraries.
I'd also disagree that Heather Has Two Mommies is inappropriate for elementary school kids. We have books picturing heterosexual couples, why not homosexual ones? It's not like the book advocates for only homosexual couples, or has sexual tones. Shockingly enough, there are also picture books about death out there. These kinds of books have a purpose. If your child brings it home, sit down and talk about it. If you don't want them reading it, tell them that. My parents vetted my reading.
If we're going to censor everything anyone finds offensive or inappropriate for their children, we're not going to have any materials in libraries.
Basically the 'hackers' attacking the GOP seem to be of the opinion that the GOP sucks but Kerry doesn't stand a chance of winning based on his own merits versus those of GWB. Kinda sad when you have no faith in your own convictions.
The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend. Lots of times they're also my enemy.
Being anti-Republican does not automatically make one a Democrat or a Democratic supporter. There are a LOT of people who think the GOP sucks and who simultaneously think Kerry sucks. That doesn't mean they have no faith in their convictions. That means they don't like any of the options. That's a big difference.
I also find it unfair that as soon as someone suggests targetting Bush, some people blame Kerry and his supporters. That's a pretty strong knee jerk reaction there and probably just the reaction the GOP would like.
Yes, this is a stupid idea, and the "hackers" behind it need a good bitchslap for thinking their ideas are so right that they take precedence over everyone else's freedom of speech. They also could use a reality check as to the effect such an attack would have. But just because it's a stupid attack on one party does not mean they support the second party, and to assume they do cheapens innocent people.
And given limited space and budget, not stocking crap you don't want anyway is a good idea.
I agree, but that's what we pay librarians for, NOT attorney generals. Librarians are supposed to know their communities' and patrons' interests and needs and build a collection to serve it. The attorney general has no idea what is or is not acceptable, wanted, or needed in Wherever, Kansas, and he should not be making the collection development decisions.
No one has said that the libraries HAVE to put the crap they receive on their shelves. They can stick it in a book sale or toss it out--but the decision should be made by the library staff.
Actually, the papers are NOT publically available, as you call it. You have to pay for access. The big problem here is not how much you as a single member of the public might need to pay for a single article, but how much libraries must pay for an electronic subscription for their students and faculty to use.
Research conducted at a university is published and put in a subscription database. That university's library, in order to have access to that information, must pay for the database. So the same school that conducted the research is paying for access to it for all its students. (The publishers retain the right to most research.) Ever seen the price of such journals? Particularly science journals? Libraries are having to decide between basic journals they should have for the collection because they just can't afford the prices charged. And as more libraries cut subscriptions to journals, those journals raise their prices to cover the losses. It's turned into a vicious cycle.
There ARE a lot of reasons for the serials crisis. I don't mean to suggest that it's purely corporate greed driving the prices, but rather a series of problems in a publishing model that does not work anymore.
To give you an idea of how prices have ballooned, I'll quote from "Ruminations on the Sci-Tech Serials Crisis". Keep in mind that it was written in 1998 and the same trend has continued:
A more telling statistic may be the ratio of each discipline's price to the average price across all disciplines. In 1963, the ratio for chemistry and physics was 2.5 to 1; engineering, 1 to 1; mathematics, botany, geology, and general sciences, 1.5 to 1; and zoology, 1.5 to 1. By 1996, these ratios were 5.2 to 1; 1.5 to 1; 2 to 1; and 1.8 to 1 for each of the respective disciplines. On the other side of the coin, because the prices of these high-cost disciplines are reflected in the higher average costs of all titles in the U.S. Periodicals Index, one can observe what has happened to low-cost disciplines. As an example, the ratio for history was.8 to 1 in 1963, but by 1996 that ratio had decreased to.3 to 1.
So it's not even a problem that affects a few disciplines, because the cost of funding research access in those disciplines impacts the funding of other disciplines.
Companies which sell electronic journals also often have draconian deals. In order to get certain journals, libraries must purchase bundles of journals and sign a non-cancellation clause for a certain number of years. Thus libraries are locked into paying for those journals despite unknown rate hikes (which on average are 5-8% per year. On average.). Makes balancing your budget interesting.
A number of colleges and universities have publically come out and refused to pay for the electronic subscriptions anymore, and most are attempting to support open publishing initiatives. (Carleton, Macalester, St. Olaf, Gustavus Adolphus, and Cornell have all issued press releases pertaining to this in the past two years.)
So we have a situation where publically-funded research is published by a private company and then is resold to the university where the research was conducted, whose library must choose between several disciplines and journals and leave some areas uncovered, thus actually depriving its students and faculty of information in their areas. This bill may help that situation. If nothing else, it's already an unsustainable model for a business, so this will simply hurry the demise and rise of new alternatives.
But if it really came down to it, touch typing does require learning in a disciplined environment such as in a school. What passes for "Computer Skills" do not. I think most people pick up more "Computer Skills" on their own then ever do in a class.
Eh. I know plenty of people who taught thenmselves to touch type outside of school. I don't think anyone NEEDS to learn to touch type in elementary or high school. You can always teach yourself or take a course later, and for many non-clerical jobs, the speed you build up over time with use is sufficient. Speaking strictly for myself, I would like the ten weeks of touch typing class I was forced to endure back. I learned, got an A, and went back to typing my own way. I'd rather have spent the time on something more germane to my studies.
Also, what passes for computer skills can be learned on your own, yes, but only if you have a computer. Believe it or not, there are still lots of kids out there without computers or with computers that they aren't allowed to touch because it's for a parent's job.
If I had a required computer/Internet course for schools, it would be "The Art of Reading the Damn Screen Before You Click." That's the biggest problem I see in the people I teach. Fifteen minute class for the quick kids, remedial classes available for up to a year for the persistant non-screen-readers.
Can anyone point out an example of a library system switching? Lots of public libraries use PCs set up as kiosks running a web interface to their catalogs, and they all seem to use IE -- so, no tabbed browsing.
I work for a public library teaching computer skills and maintaining the system. I'm trying to get Mozilla onto the computers, but I'm fighting the network admin. His comment was, "No, we need to stick with what people use at home or we'll confuse them." My response was, "Nothing says we can't have both and at least introduce them to open source software. Besides, it's a free download and it looks a lot like IE."
I have put it on some of the staff computers and showed it to some of the staff. I've even written down instructions for how to download and install it at home, and some of the staff were going to do it. But I'm still the only one who uses Firefox regularly at work, and I still can't get it on the public computers. I'm stuck with MS-group-thinkers.:/
Anyone who can point and click in IE can definitely do the same in mozilla/firefox/opera/whatever the hell lets you click on a url.
Actually, it's not quite that easy. If it were simply pointing and clicking, it wouldn't be an issue. But Mozilla looks that little bit different UI-wise, and that's all it takes to confuse the heck out of some users. I can't tell you how many people can't function if the toolbars are in a different order or if the buttons don't have the exact same order or the same pictures. Oftentimes I get called over to help panicking people rearrange toolbars so they feel comfortable.
Some people would be perfectly fine with Mozilla. Others write down every step for every Web site they visit, and should the site or the browser change at all, they're lost and they complain. Not everyone has an equal capacity for learning and reasoning out changes.
Let's face it - this court judgement is either a result of plain ignorance, or a lack of laws AND judgement.
I disagree. The court interpretation was that someone reading e-mail stored on their server did not violate the Wiretap Act as it was written. I don't have a problem with that ruling, though I'll be one of the first people to support a bill for e-mail privacy. But freaking out because you don't like the effects of a decision does not mean the decision was wrong.
I think the court was right. The Wiretap Act was not intended to cover e-mail and does a poor job of it. Rather than obscenely stretch the law to cover all sorts of possibilities, we should be passing a law that DOES address the issue.
If laws are interpreted by what we'd like them to apply to rather than what they actually apply to, then they're almost useless. The court didn't say, "Hey, anyone can read your e-mail!" They said THIS LAW didn't prohibit it. They also didn't essentially make up a law saying the Wiretap Act included e-mail. They did their job. Now you do yours and write your Congressional reps in support of an e-mail privacy bill.
Slashdot Mirror
There are lots of other reasons you could contrive, what if you had Mac friends that visit a lot but constantly lament being unable to use your PC?
Er... I get new friends?
Here is a short list: Guns, hammers, rocks, knives, forks, spoons, sporks, drills, axes, saws, chainsaws, javelins, baseballs, Windows, Linux, Office, pillows, electronic devices, sheets, bath tubs, lawn mowers, mail boxes, etc.
What do they all have in common with P2P? They all have legitimate uses because they are simply tools, but at the same time they can also be used for crime.
Er... what are YOU doing with your lawn mower?
Driver's licenses are not compulsory.
From the article:
"The provision would allow the Homeland Security Department to require use of the license, or an equivalent card issued by motor vehicle bureaus to nondrivers for identification purposes, for access to planes, trains and other modes of transportation."
Sure, it's not compulsory if you never want to travel. Or you could opt for the lovely nondriver ID card. Wow, what a choice.
I dunno about you, but it's a darn long walk to visit some of my friends.
A library could become a sort of a low cost competitor to Barnes and Noble.
I work for a public library and even I think that's a terrible idea. Barnes and Noble has a right to make money without having to compete with government-subsidized pseudo-businesses.
Libraries exist as a sort of co-op. They purchase items or access to information that is shared by the public. If you want information or to read a book, go to the library. If you want to OWN the book, go to a bookstore.
I'd also say that the concept of really cheap books because of lack of physical inventory isn't guaranteed. It certainly hasn't panned out with magazines or academic journals because the largest costs associated with publishing are for editing and marketing. If you doubt this, read up on the cost of electronic science journal subscriptions for academic libraries.
Regarding the tech support aspect, many libraries have full time tech staff who maintain their computers and equipment (mine does), but many do not and limp by with one staff person who knows how to fix a few computer problems. It generally depends on the affluence of the area. I can tell you from our luck with photocopy machines and self checkout machines though that if you expect an external company to provide and maintain a machine, don't expect it to function well or often. We have more luck with computers because if something goes wrong, there are 4 of us who can fix it.
There's also a big copyright issue with the whole concept of scanning in the LoC collection. With physical library items, only one person may have the item at a time, so there's no copyright issue. (No copies are being made.) With a digital version, multiple people can access it at one time. With electronic databases, libraries generally pay enough for access to cover copyright issues and have a limit for access at the same time. With LoC, that doesn't sound possible.
Finally, the upkeep cost for scanned items is huge. A lot of academic sites have been unable to make a go of funding and disappeared. I'm not sure this would work well.
Although I think that Internet access in schools, and libraries are a good thing, why is it that it has to be the Federal Government's job to give them internet access. Because it's a hell of a lot cheaper to pay for Internet access than it is to make paper versions of all the government information available only online and ship them off to schools and public libraries? In the last few years a lot of government documents have become available primarily electronically, supplanting the former paper parade. If the federal government isn't willing to help schools and libraries access these items, which the people have a right to view, then they can create paper copies and send them out. Seems to me that's a lot more expensive. The other thing to keep in mind is that the federal government is not footing the whole cost. They're providing some rebates after the fact. Schools and libraries are still paying for the majority of the bill, and not all of them receive e-Rate funding. Finally, it benefits the country as a whole to have an educated populace as a whole, not just an educated populace in certain areas that can afford it or have broadband access. The areas able to pay for Internet connections on their own are the ones that need them the least--the affluent areas where a larger percentage of the population has a home Internet connection. In some areas, the choice would need to be made between providing a Net connection or providing for garbage pickup, and it isn't fair to deprive people of government information and access because they live in a cash-strapped municipality. While in theory I agree with you, in practice, I think the federal government needs to be involved.
Personally, I do not see much reason for the local library to have Internet connectivity for visitors. I always went to the library to get books and media, not sit there and type on some nasty public keyboard.
;) This is why my public library needs a public Internet connection:
You're missing something major here.
Libraries provide information. Sometimes the best way to get that information is via the Internet. It's become especially important since many reference materials have gone to an electronic format and since libraries band together to purchase access. (Hence a CD of information at one location will not suffice.) If your choice is between having access to a bunch of electronic databases (such as magazine indexes and business research guides) or not having them at all, wouldn't you choose to fund them? It's a lot easier than reading through each magazine to find relevant articles...
Many government materials are available only on the Internet.
Come tax season, we cannot keep the blankety blank tax forms stocked, and we cannot stock every possible form from every possible state. An Internet connection allows patrons to locate and print out the tax forms they need.
Businesspeople often travel and need Internet access. Public libraries provide that. Same with anyone traveling. Since I've yet to see Internet cafes floating around in this area, public libraries provide one of the few ways for travelers to contact coworkers or families.
You also don't seem to realize that many job postings can only be applied for via e-mail or Web sites. Libraries serve as a place for the unemployed to job search. We also get a number of people needing to register for unemployment claims who have been told by the unemployment office specifically to go to their local library and register online.
Local schools and colleges often give assignments that require Internet use. Public libraries need to have Internet access so that students can do their assigned homework if they don't have a Net connection at home (or don't have necessary software) and can't make it to the school lab during the few hours it's open. (Our local community college computer lab is only open a few hours during the summer. We get a LOT of community college students who need access to the Internet on a weekend or evening because they work.)
Many people need to learn how to use their e-mail account for work purposes, but no one at work will show them how. Our computer center teaches them e-mail basics. Hard to do with no Internet connection. (We also teach electronic database searches and basic Internet skills.)
Some software programs only contain Web-based help.
Our public card catalog is Web-based, so in order for our patrons to search it, we need an Internet connection. It makes no sense for us to duplicate catalog services or code a second in-house interface for public access.
I live in Pittsburgh. Trying to drive around Pittsburgh is interesting because the many rivers and valeys and abrupt hills make straight roads or grids improbable and expensive. The saying in the Burgh is "Sure, you can see it, but you can't get there from here." This means that printed maps aren't always the best way to get information as they tend to be confusing. Oftentimes driving directions from an online source work much better.
Also, if patrons need to find a phone number or address in another city or state, they pretty much need an Internet connection anymore. We do not get all the phonebooks we used to because phone companies started charging us $50 per book. We simply can't afford 1) the physical space to host the phone books, and 2) the cost of purchasing new ones every year or every few years even for the major cities in the US.
In summary, it's cheaper just to pay for the darn Internet connection than to try to provide services without it, and it saves a lot of whining. Spending the money on the Internet connection actually impr
I could theoretically see a private citizen requesting copies of these aerials and other GIS data, and then selling them at his business or through some other private means, and making a profit at the expense of the county (or whatever agency).
And I could clearly see the individual who does that getting his ass sued for copyright infringement. Getting access to something does not mean you can rip it off and use someone else's work for a derivative work. Information can be made available for public use without making it available for commercial use.
There are two issues here:
1. Is there a legal basis to deny the Freedom of Information request? I'd guess no, since as far as I can tell, this does not meet any of the exceptions listed in the Freedom of Information Act. (blah blah IANAL blah blah.)
2. If this information is made public, will it be carelessly used for commercial purposes? Unless the photographers or government members are idiots (and I'm not saying they are or aren't--I don't know), the photos should still be under copyright, and facts (such as who owns what real estate) are definitely in the public realm. So the recipient couldn't use the photos commercially, but the facts aren't copyrightable. The database as a whole, however, probably is. So, the recipient of the information couldn't sell the database itself--he/she'd have to use raw data and create his/her own database for it to be legal to sell it. By the time they've taken public facts and created a system to access them that adds enough value that someone wants to BUY it, then yes, they should be allowed to profit from it.
Now for public access, a few problems exist with this. In general, a private citizen wouldn't have much need for the information so releasing to the public would essentially benefit a very small set of people/companies. The benefit for this small group would essentially be paid for by all tax payers.
I think you miss the point. It isn't whether or not a private citizen would have use for this, but rather that the government paid for it and the information SHOULD be available via a Freedom of Information request. Unless the information meets one of the exceptions listed in the Freedom of Information Act, it simply shouldn't be restricted. That's why we have the darn exceptions in the first place. "I don't think most people will use it" is not an acceptable reason to block access to information obtained with public funds.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that the government fund Internet access to such records for the general public, but the records should be available on request.
If you are concerned about people making commercial use of such aerial photography, I would think such photography would still be under copyright and thus could not be used in such a manner.
I wasn't offended by the "funny way women look at the world" bit. That was obvious humor. I use that sort all the time with my friends.
On the other hand, the write-up says: Most recipes are designed for women, and their funny way of looking at the world. These are very different and instantly understandable for tech geeks like us.
Er... tech geeks aren't women? Women aren't tech geeks? Am I not allowed on here or something?
The obvious humor was fine. The suggestion, though, that women and engineers or women and tech geeks are two different classes is kind of insulting. Actually, I'd probably ignore it if I hadn't just come from a computer show where I asked a few technical questions and the rep looked at my husband and answered to him (including using the word "sir").
Is it the end of the world? Nope. But I was certainly less than appreciative of the write-up. The site, however, is pretty cool. Now if I only could stand cooking...
A directory of all department employees, home phone, address, emergency contact, and home email is an example. This information is not classified. However, I do not know anyone that would want their employer making suck a directory public.
:)
If you're talking a private company, then of course the information isn't classified, but it also is not public. It wasn't paid for by your tax dollars, and FOIA doesn't apply to it.
If you're talking about the government, while such personal information is not classified, it DOES meet one of the other areas specified in the FOIA as exempt from FOIA (personal privacy, in this case, and possibly internal personnel rules and practices). FYI, those exemptions (taken from here) are:
Exemption 1: Classified Documents
Exemption 2: Internal Personnel Rules and Practices
Exemption 3: Information Exempt Under Other Laws
Exemption 4: Confidential Business Information
Exemption 5: Internal Government Communications
Exemption 6: Personal Privacy
Exemption 7: Law Enforcement
Exemption 8: Financial Institutions
Exemption 9: Geological Information
What's my point? My point is that the argument that some unclassified information should be restricted by the government is fine and dandy, but we've already specified what areas those are. I don't think we need to expand them anymore. I certainly don't want to suddenly start restricting things like satellite images and derivatives yet not classifying them because state employees might possibly need them. I'm all for moderation in restriction.
I'm still not following why I should not have access to information 1) categorized as unclassified and 2) purchased by my government. If it's a security threat, then classify it. If not, my money paid for it and if I can be bothered to fill out a FOIA request, I should have access to it.
(To quote from the proposed bill: Compelled release of such data and imagery by the United States under FOIA defeats the purpose of these licensing agreements, removes any profit motive, and may damage the national security by mandating disclosure to the general public upon request. While the data and imagery could be protected from disclosure under FOIA by classifying them, the United States prefers to keep them unclassified. Unclassified matter is more easily shared with coalition partners in contingency operations and with State and local officials in disaster relief and homeland security operations. )
Restricting the public's access to unclassified government information to protect a profit motive is not a step with which I'm comfortable. If it's a security risk, classify it, but don't start blocking access to unclassified information just because you can't be bothered to make it classified because it make take an extra step or two to share the info.
If it doesn't fall into one of the nine exempted areas of FOIA and you can't be bothered to make it classified, we paid for the damn information and should be able to make use of it.
I stand by my original statement despite your obviously uneducated and rather ignorant if not downright rude and trollish response.
"More than 2,000 romance titles are released every year, and the genre generates more than half (55%) of all paperback fiction sales in America. Add hardbacks to the mix and romance still represents a third (35%) of all fiction. Take it one step farther to consider the entire bookstore -- non-fiction included -- and romance novels represent 18% of all books sold." Taken from the RWA Web site.
I do apologize if you felt my post was rude, but the information in it was good (as shown by the above statistics). I'm neither uneducated nor ignorant, and in fact I work as a librarian and have an excellent grasp of what books my patrons are requesting. And frankly, we get a LOT of requests for romances regardless of the socioeconomic class of patrons (though heavily read by women and not men).
If you're going to post something which says "Sales equates to quality in books," then expect people to refute that. I did use strong language, but I never made a personal attack or name called. I poked at your reasoning and suggested it was flawed, and I disagreed with your comment that OotP was a wonderful book. I'm sorry you took that as "starting shit" with you. It was intended more in the vein of jolting you into considering another point of view based on using an example that did not fit your statement.
So are we clear now?
Sales reflect quality in books, perhaps not in movies or computer operating systems, but in books, people buy what they like. Obviously when the sales don't reflect the nominations, the ones doing the nominating have a bias.
Which explains why romance books sell so well. They're incredibly well written.
Once you've finished laughing over the above, you can drop the "What sells well is well written" logic. The Da Vinci Code sold well and was interesting, but frankly had a lot of plot and character problems. I firmly believe Robert Jordan's work is hideous, yet it still sells well. Like movies, quality is not necessarily about what's popular, but about plot, style, character development, mood, and much more.
Having read most of the nominated books and all the Harry Potter books, I would have voted for either Ilium or Paladin of Souls. The fifth Potter book was not as well written as previous ones in the series, and in fact the first 200 pages were rather like beating my head against a wall repeatedly. There's no way it deserved a nomination in this competition, no matter how much I like Rowlings' writing and the Potter series.
I feel no sorrow for the library. I hope the lawyers get involved and that the library and police face penalties for this.
Why the hell should the library face penalties? They didn't tell the policeman to do anything to harass the man. While I agree that the policeman in question should get a talking to, suing anyone is ridiculously extreme, particularly an institution that was merely the site.
That said, it's perfectly reasonable to assume that a public library's WiFi is available for use outside the library (even if the library is closed) if it's accessible. That is standard at some libraries in the US, and unless there is no access or there's something clearly posted, AKMA couldn't have known.
The library did post a rule after the fact stating that the wifi should only be used during the library's hours. I certainly hope they've learned to shut it off when they aren't open. Overall, I imagine it was an oversight on the library's part to not turn it off after hours.
We'll shortly be implementing a public wireless network at the library where I work, and we expect patrons will use it outside, and we will be shutting it down when we're closed to avoid excessive bandwidth costs.
What happens when one parent doesn't think a book is appropriate. What about when a minority doesn't think a book is appropriate? What about a majority?
Ah, okay. That depends on the school or library's specific policy to handle challenges. They should have one. I think it's perfectly reasonable to ask your school librarian if they have a policy and what it is, and if they do not have one, suggest that one be written.
An example using one procedure I've seen starts with a meeting between the challenging party, an administrator, and a librarian to discuss the issue, or the English teacher if it's an assigned book. If no satisfactory conclusion is reached informally, the challenging party is given a specific form to fill out that asks them to state their objections and give examples. That form and the book are then read and evaluated by a panel composed of both school representatives and parents drawn from the district. The panel may hear comments from both the challengers and the librarian/teacher. They then make a decision on whether the book should be removed, retained, restricted, etc. Some policies involve the panel making a recommendation rather than a decision and the school board deciding the issue.
Now keep in mind that if a book is removed or retained, that isn't necessarily the end of the line. For some it is, but other decisions have been challenged in a court of law.
Examples of cases:
Stevana Case, et. al., vs. Unified School District no. 233: Students and parents sued the school district of Olathe, KS after the superintendant and school board removed the book Annie on My Mind from the libraries in violation of the policies for such action. A judge ordered them returned to the shelves. (I believe this was filed in 1994 and decided a few years later.)
Pico, et. al. vs. Board of Education, Island Trees (NY) Union Free School District: A plurality of the Supreme Court ruled that books removed by the school board should be returned. They said books cannot be removed "simply because they dislike the ideas contained" in them, thereby "[p]rescribing what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion." Books can be removed for not meeting educational suitability requirements. There was also more in the decision about discretion in curriculum for transmitting community values balanced against the school library as a center for free inquiry. I believe this one is from 1982, and it's pretty much considered the biggie for librarians.
Whew. I'm hoping that helped?
Katherine Paterson is also deeply Christian and her books get banned all the time for language, distressing themes, and poor role models. Cuz you know, if your best friend dies tragically, you'd never swear or act out...
I've also heard from teachers who are not allowed to teach or read C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien in classes because they are fantasy and "might confuse children as to what is real." It continues to boggle my mind.
So what's an appropriate process for determining which books are inappropriate for kids to check out of the school library. Keep in mind, schools have certain rights and responsibilities re: kids (locus parenti) that other libarary don't have.
What items go in a library depends on the focus of the school, curriculum needs, student requests, age, reading level, coverage of topics in the current collection, budget, and much more. One thing to keep in mind here is that schools often serve a wide range of reading abilities and emotional maturities, and that materials are going to have to range in topic and maturity in order to meet the needs of the child. If we only had books suitable for 3-year-olds, our 5th graders wouldn't be getting much out of the reading.
Obviously what books are appropriate for a Catholic school versus a public school will differ. Books deemed appropriate or desirable in NYC will fall flat in Podunksville. That's why librarians (school and otherwise) are employed to examine the interests and needs of their patrons and attempt to fill them, as well as to teach good researching skills.
Er, do you want more on how librarians decide? I'd also note that usually libraries have challenge procedures in place, so those who disagree can have the item examined.
The problem is, how do I know if my kid gets a book I don't approve of at the school library? Maybe he reads it there and doesn't bring it home so I'll never find out.
:)
;)
Well, yes, but that's true of anything. How do you know if your child sneaks a smoke? How about if they ride their bike without a helmet? Take off their earmuffs on the way to school? You'll never know everything your child does, and to believe you can protect them to that extent is somewhat delusional. (I know you weren't saying that, I'm just extending the discussion point here a bit.)
Usually librarians make the decisions as to what books are purchased and where in the library they are located, not a committee. That's why you pay librarians, and why they not only have to be certified as teachers but also have a Masters degree in library science. They make them based on curriculum needs, the current collection coverage, student interest and requests, reading level, critical reviews, and sometimes actual physical examination for appropriateness. They also have to consider budget. No matter what the ALA says, most librarians think there are standards for age appropriateness. (I'm a public librarian who has spent a lot of time with school librarians. They drive me nuts worrying about every scene in a book and every swear word. I'm SO not cut out to be a school librarian.)
Most schools should have a specific policy for how a book can be challenged as inappropriate (either for its current location or at all) that involves informal meetings and discussions, formal filing of complaint, and review by a committee composed of parental and school representatives. And really, no matter what rhetoric you read (either ALA or Family Friendly Bullpucky), most librarians I've met will agree that some books aren't appropriate for school (or other) libraries. That's why we have procedures for challenges.
Finally, I agree with you about the reality of banned book lists for each child. I can imagine the horror of trying to keep a checklist of what books a child can or cannot check out, and I frankly doubt it would be effective. Have you ever tried to check out seething crowds of children, keep them in line, and carefully read each and every screen? Besides,if Johnny wants to read a book but is barred from it, he gets friend Jimmy to check it out. (I've worked in children's rooms in a public library, and once you hit a critical mass of kids and books, you lose some accuracy. Being human does that.)
Anyone still awake at the end of this post?
And many of them SHOULD be banned. I'd be pretty ticked if my kid brought home some of the books from that list from school.
And while I respect your right to decide what your child reads, you do NOT have the right to decide what MY child reads or what OTHER PEOPLE's children read. Just because you find Bridge to Terabithia to be crap doesn't mean all kids do, and I want my child to be able to check it out of a school library.
Keep in mind that this list does not just reflect school libraries, and that this is a list of challenges to books, not necessarily that all these books have been successfully removed from libraries.
I'd also disagree that Heather Has Two Mommies is inappropriate for elementary school kids. We have books picturing heterosexual couples, why not homosexual ones? It's not like the book advocates for only homosexual couples, or has sexual tones. Shockingly enough, there are also picture books about death out there. These kinds of books have a purpose. If your child brings it home, sit down and talk about it. If you don't want them reading it, tell them that. My parents vetted my reading.
If we're going to censor everything anyone finds offensive or inappropriate for their children, we're not going to have any materials in libraries.
Basically the 'hackers' attacking the GOP seem to be of the opinion that the GOP sucks but Kerry doesn't stand a chance of winning based on his own merits versus those of GWB. Kinda sad when you have no faith in your own convictions.
The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend. Lots of times they're also my enemy.
Being anti-Republican does not automatically make one a Democrat or a Democratic supporter. There are a LOT of people who think the GOP sucks and who simultaneously think Kerry sucks. That doesn't mean they have no faith in their convictions. That means they don't like any of the options. That's a big difference.
I also find it unfair that as soon as someone suggests targetting Bush, some people blame Kerry and his supporters. That's a pretty strong knee jerk reaction there and probably just the reaction the GOP would like.
Yes, this is a stupid idea, and the "hackers" behind it need a good bitchslap for thinking their ideas are so right that they take precedence over everyone else's freedom of speech. They also could use a reality check as to the effect such an attack would have. But just because it's a stupid attack on one party does not mean they support the second party, and to assume they do cheapens innocent people.
I agree, but that's what we pay librarians for, NOT attorney generals. Librarians are supposed to know their communities' and patrons' interests and needs and build a collection to serve it. The attorney general has no idea what is or is not acceptable, wanted, or needed in Wherever, Kansas, and he should not be making the collection development decisions.
No one has said that the libraries HAVE to put the crap they receive on their shelves. They can stick it in a book sale or toss it out--but the decision should be made by the library staff.
Research conducted at a university is published and put in a subscription database. That university's library, in order to have access to that information, must pay for the database. So the same school that conducted the research is paying for access to it for all its students. (The publishers retain the right to most research.) Ever seen the price of such journals? Particularly science journals? Libraries are having to decide between basic journals they should have for the collection because they just can't afford the prices charged. And as more libraries cut subscriptions to journals, those journals raise their prices to cover the losses. It's turned into a vicious cycle.
There ARE a lot of reasons for the serials crisis. I don't mean to suggest that it's purely corporate greed driving the prices, but rather a series of problems in a publishing model that does not work anymore.
To give you an idea of how prices have ballooned, I'll quote from "Ruminations on the Sci-Tech Serials Crisis". Keep in mind that it was written in 1998 and the same trend has continued:
A more telling statistic may be the ratio of each discipline's price to the average price across all disciplines. In 1963, the ratio for chemistry and physics was 2.5 to 1; engineering, 1 to 1; mathematics, botany, geology, and general sciences, 1.5 to 1; and zoology, 1.5 to 1. By 1996, these ratios were 5.2 to 1; 1.5 to 1; 2 to 1; and 1.8 to 1 for each of the respective disciplines. On the other side of the coin, because the prices of these high-cost disciplines are reflected in the higher average costs of all titles in the U.S. Periodicals Index, one can observe what has happened to low-cost disciplines. As an example, the ratio for history was .8 to 1 in 1963, but by 1996 that ratio had decreased to .3 to 1.
So it's not even a problem that affects a few disciplines, because the cost of funding research access in those disciplines impacts the funding of other disciplines.
Companies which sell electronic journals also often have draconian deals. In order to get certain journals, libraries must purchase bundles of journals and sign a non-cancellation clause for a certain number of years. Thus libraries are locked into paying for those journals despite unknown rate hikes (which on average are 5-8% per year. On average.). Makes balancing your budget interesting.
A number of colleges and universities have publically come out and refused to pay for the electronic subscriptions anymore, and most are attempting to support open publishing initiatives. (Carleton, Macalester, St. Olaf, Gustavus Adolphus, and Cornell have all issued press releases pertaining to this in the past two years.)
So we have a situation where publically-funded research is published by a private company and then is resold to the university where the research was conducted, whose library must choose between several disciplines and journals and leave some areas uncovered, thus actually depriving its students and faculty of information in their areas. This bill may help that situation. If nothing else, it's already an unsustainable model for a business, so this will simply hurry the demise and rise of new alternatives.
Eh. I know plenty of people who taught thenmselves to touch type outside of school. I don't think anyone NEEDS to learn to touch type in elementary or high school. You can always teach yourself or take a course later, and for many non-clerical jobs, the speed you build up over time with use is sufficient. Speaking strictly for myself, I would like the ten weeks of touch typing class I was forced to endure back. I learned, got an A, and went back to typing my own way. I'd rather have spent the time on something more germane to my studies.
Also, what passes for computer skills can be learned on your own, yes, but only if you have a computer. Believe it or not, there are still lots of kids out there without computers or with computers that they aren't allowed to touch because it's for a parent's job.
If I had a required computer/Internet course for schools, it would be "The Art of Reading the Damn Screen Before You Click." That's the biggest problem I see in the people I teach. Fifteen minute class for the quick kids, remedial classes available for up to a year for the persistant non-screen-readers.
Can anyone point out an example of a library system switching? Lots of public libraries use PCs set up as kiosks running a web interface to their catalogs, and they all seem to use IE -- so, no tabbed browsing.
:/
I work for a public library teaching computer skills and maintaining the system. I'm trying to get Mozilla onto the computers, but I'm fighting the network admin. His comment was, "No, we need to stick with what people use at home or we'll confuse them." My response was, "Nothing says we can't have both and at least introduce them to open source software. Besides, it's a free download and it looks a lot like IE."
I have put it on some of the staff computers and showed it to some of the staff. I've even written down instructions for how to download and install it at home, and some of the staff were going to do it. But I'm still the only one who uses Firefox regularly at work, and I still can't get it on the public computers. I'm stuck with MS-group-thinkers.
Anyone who can point and click in IE can definitely do the same in mozilla/firefox/opera/whatever the hell lets you click on a url.
Actually, it's not quite that easy. If it were simply pointing and clicking, it wouldn't be an issue. But Mozilla looks that little bit different UI-wise, and that's all it takes to confuse the heck out of some users. I can't tell you how many people can't function if the toolbars are in a different order or if the buttons don't have the exact same order or the same pictures. Oftentimes I get called over to help panicking people rearrange toolbars so they feel comfortable.
Some people would be perfectly fine with Mozilla. Others write down every step for every Web site they visit, and should the site or the browser change at all, they're lost and they complain. Not everyone has an equal capacity for learning and reasoning out changes.
Let's face it - this court judgement is either a result of plain ignorance, or a lack of laws AND judgement.
I disagree. The court interpretation was that someone reading e-mail stored on their server did not violate the Wiretap Act as it was written. I don't have a problem with that ruling, though I'll be one of the first people to support a bill for e-mail privacy. But freaking out because you don't like the effects of a decision does not mean the decision was wrong.
I think the court was right. The Wiretap Act was not intended to cover e-mail and does a poor job of it. Rather than obscenely stretch the law to cover all sorts of possibilities, we should be passing a law that DOES address the issue.
If laws are interpreted by what we'd like them to apply to rather than what they actually apply to, then they're almost useless. The court didn't say, "Hey, anyone can read your e-mail!" They said THIS LAW didn't prohibit it. They also didn't essentially make up a law saying the Wiretap Act included e-mail. They did their job. Now you do yours and write your Congressional reps in support of an e-mail privacy bill.