Archives for January 2006

I think "Ick!" says whatever the title doesn’t:

Human Skin-Bound Books in Many Libraries

Apparently this was a big thing in the 19th century.  Enjoy! (or, well . . . whatever.)

Also new in 2006: it’s now a federal crime to send someone an annoying e-mail anonymously. I’d pay to hear a few FBI agents talking about how’d they go about enforcing this one. I doubt it would stand any realu judicial scritiny (or, I hope it wouldn’t) but it could just be seen as the logical conclusion of a country run by people who all think they’re special (or at least all think they deserve special consideration for something by someone), who have lost any sense of dignity and are on the verge of losing their sense of humor.  On the other hand, the law apparently says that it’s okay to flame someone as long as you use your real name, so perhaps this is a mid-term election stunt of some kind.

At any rate, the new law is described here, so take a look for yourself.

Personally, yes, I think cyberstalking is a major problem.  Anonymous e-mail that someone may take offense at is another story.  Criminalizing it is one of those very tricky propositions that looks great on paper but is probably a lot less effecacious both in terms of prevention and enforcement in real life. The article notes that the version of the bill that passed was its second incarnation: an earlier version of the bill had a higher standard of proof of damage (one had to use an "interactive computer service" to cause "substantial emotional harm.") Criminalizing merely obnoxious e-mail is impossible to enforce unless the FBI plans to filter literally every email that passes between two American citizens. They can’t really do that, can they?

Well, can they?

None of these (late again!) tidbits have anything strictly to do with library science, library management, library work, reference work, or other facets of Libraryland’s inner workings (when will I learn to be on topic with this stuff?) but they all have to do with library-related stuff that I think about from time to time.

Another bit about Google; yes, I am obsessed with Google. I am obsessed with what Google’s continued growth and ambition means for libraries and librarianship. I am obsessed with the precedents that Google’s operations and plans are setting for those of us who deal with data management on a daily basis and with its implications for the methods and goals of research for everyone. This particular article comes from author Douglas Rushkoff, whose work I’ve read (and enjoyed) and who I have real respect for. I don’t agree with his final point, that Goggle somehow has sullied its otherwise sterling reputation as a genuinely new internet company by buying five percent of AOL. From what I can find, it wasn’t this purchase that made them a competitor to Microsoft–they were always competitors of Microsoft. Every tech company that is not Microsoft competes with Microsoft in some way, shape or form–that’s a message the Bill Gates has sent to the world loud and clear over the past twenty years. If it isn’t, then why has Microsoft bought so many new and interesting companies and technologies and done its best to integrate the newest tech into their own products? (Please don’t try to tell me it’s all about making Windows the best OS ever–it hasn’t been the case for over a decade.) That’s what Bill repeatedly calls "innovation." (I call it "eating the opposition.") But the point is the same–the relationship between huge mega-companies in the tech field is complicated and ever-shifting, with each year bringing events that nobody very  accurately anticipates. If Google feels that owning a bit of AOL gives them an edge in the marketplace, and they’re using their own funds to do it, that’s good enough for me.

That’s not to say this is necessarily a great strategy for Goggle, mind you. I still can’t figure out how they intend to make this new purchase work for them–I don’t know what AOL has they can genuinely make use of (except enormous cash flow, which is not a bad thing.) Must be why I’m not a MBA.

Another speech from Bill Moyers: read everything Moyers ever wrote, said, or otherwise spoke of. You won’t go wrong.  Even if you hate him and everything he stands for (social justice, equality, integrity) you will learn from his work. I promise.

Finally, we have this bit from Andrew Tobias’ website. Please don’t tell me this is off topic. Integrity in data formulation is always on-topic for a library blog. This is a big deal, folks. A. Very. Big. Deal.

Update: Here’s a follow-up to Friday’s article on Andy’s site, and here is a link to a GAO report on the veracity of our election process. A. Very. Big. Deal.

I know, I’m a day late (again). I came back from vacation yesterday to dive right into integrating our new electronic journal list from our new serials vendor into our catalog, which process includes verifying the back files of each title and making sure that the overlapping databases (our general link resolver, whatever we get through other electronic resource vendors, etc.) It’s a lot of work and not one of these major companies has any way of doing batch updates (other than the typical batch activations that we use to upload changes and updates to the link resolver). Blah. And we just purchased a huge bundle of new material which also has electronic formats that needs to be integrated the same way, so . . . Double Blah.

Anyway, my boss forwarded this to us yesterday: "Do Libraries Matter: On Library & Librarian 2.0" by Michael Stephens on the ALA TechSource blog. I’m not sure that there’s much material here that hasn’t been written on or imagined by at least someone in Libraryland, but it’s good reading just the same and the links are active.

Enjoy!