In The Chronicle Review's Note Bene today, "Lights, Camera, Publishing?," by NINA C. AYOUB.
It sounds like video, when it works, works wonderfully. I would love to try audio and video casts to add value to our text books. What could be better for promotion than listening or seeing the book being used in a classroom setting?
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
New-to-me, unaccessible tool
I knew there was software that made writing review and proofing easier for those involved than constant emailing or copying of files (pretty much every wiki software is made for that). I didn't know this company existed: http://www.scholarone.com/products_manuscriptcentral_aboutMC.shtml.
It looks so cool, it makes me want to submit a paper just to see it in action.
It looks so cool, it makes me want to submit a paper just to see it in action.
Monday, June 30, 2008
PoGo: The New Polaroid
The Chicago Tribune features a review of the PoGo, the new portable, pocket-sized digital photo print maker from Polaroid, From Camera to Prints in a Matter of Minutes.
It sounds like Polaroid updated their iconic instant-photo product, and very well. One thing it might be missing that the original Polaroid provided was a true un-duplicatable-snapshot, reliable as a recording of an instant in time and space in a way that no digitally-produced image can be.
It sounds like Polaroid updated their iconic instant-photo product, and very well. One thing it might be missing that the original Polaroid provided was a true un-duplicatable-snapshot, reliable as a recording of an instant in time and space in a way that no digitally-produced image can be.
DELOS (The Digital Library Association of the EU)
Seven months after its inception (the group it is based on is ten years old) this association already has 59 members, http://www.diglib.org/. It looks comparable to the Digital Library Federation of the U.S., http://www.diglib.org/.
The program for the Spring Forum for the DLF has some papers that look good, especially Asset Actions Next Steps: Atom/OAI-ORE and Zotero, as well as presentations that cover open access mandates, propose social science data networks, user-centered design, ARTstor, and this presentationon UIScholarWords at Indiana University.
The program for the Spring Forum for the DLF has some papers that look good, especially Asset Actions Next Steps: Atom/OAI-ORE and Zotero, as well as presentations that cover open access mandates, propose social science data networks, user-centered design, ARTstor, and this presentationon UIScholarWords at Indiana University.
Friday, June 20, 2008
Pogue's eBook Experiment
A comment on David Pogue's ongoing eBook comments and discussions, the lastest available here. I enjoy David Pogue's posts, but have to admit that I've never purchased a book by him, and, given the titles of the books that he mentions, I can't imagine why I would.
I remember seeing students copying entire texts at the Union and libraries back when I was in college (back when Gopher was more than a rodent). These copies weren't for Gopher-distribution. And I could never figure out how the students thought they were ahead making $.10 copies of a 400-page book instead of buying a used, and sometimes even a new copy. I guess the moral is that some people will make copies just to do so.
That said, I'm glad that the "Circuits" columnist is finally moving at least some of his books (legitimately) online.
I remember seeing students copying entire texts at the Union and libraries back when I was in college (back when Gopher was more than a rodent). These copies weren't for Gopher-distribution. And I could never figure out how the students thought they were ahead making $.10 copies of a 400-page book instead of buying a used, and sometimes even a new copy. I guess the moral is that some people will make copies just to do so.
That said, I'm glad that the "Circuits" columnist is finally moving at least some of his books (legitimately) online.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
JSTOR's Updates
One of LJ’s bloggers has a criticism of the new JSTOR functionality, met with a good, concise explanation of the updates and their reasons: http://www.libraryjournal.com/blog/1100000310/post/1320028332.html.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Hilarity Resulting from Unconscious Irony
This appeared in this morning's "Online Media Daily," quoted from Reuter's:
"In an on-stage interview with writer Ken Auletta of the New Yorker magazine, Schmidt said, "'Don't be evil' is meant to provoke internal debate over what constitutes ethical corporate behavior, rather than representing an absolute moral position."
Schmitt goes on to say that there is no "evilmeter" they can apply to test whether something is good or evil.
I read the quote to a co-worker who found the quote just as hilarious as I. Maybe it's the Midwestern Protestant training I received early in the development of my atheistic agnostic world view, but the phrase doesn't really allow for ambiguity. The philosophy behind it might. One would think that if something is on the "evil" side of the meter, one would cease, no? Well, no, if one follows Schmidt's logic:
"The goal of the company is not to monetize everything, the goal is to change the world.... We don't start from monetization. We start from the perspective of what problems do we have."
So, they don't start from monetization, they find out how they can monetize the solutions to problems. If a bridge for cars blocks a waterway needed for boats, is the bridge evil? One person's "solution" is another's problem. To make a better Google analogy, if an elephant sits on his trainer, killing him, is the elephant evil? I can't make the leap to evil being morally ambiguous. Even if one doesn't do "evil" it leaves a wide margin for behavior that, unintentionally or not, can do great harm.
"In an on-stage interview with writer Ken Auletta of the New Yorker magazine, Schmidt said, "'Don't be evil' is meant to provoke internal debate over what constitutes ethical corporate behavior, rather than representing an absolute moral position."
Schmitt goes on to say that there is no "evilmeter" they can apply to test whether something is good or evil.
I read the quote to a co-worker who found the quote just as hilarious as I. Maybe it's the Midwestern Protestant training I received early in the development of my atheistic agnostic world view, but the phrase doesn't really allow for ambiguity. The philosophy behind it might. One would think that if something is on the "evil" side of the meter, one would cease, no? Well, no, if one follows Schmidt's logic:
"The goal of the company is not to monetize everything, the goal is to change the world.... We don't start from monetization. We start from the perspective of what problems do we have."
So, they don't start from monetization, they find out how they can monetize the solutions to problems. If a bridge for cars blocks a waterway needed for boats, is the bridge evil? One person's "solution" is another's problem. To make a better Google analogy, if an elephant sits on his trainer, killing him, is the elephant evil? I can't make the leap to evil being morally ambiguous. Even if one doesn't do "evil" it leaves a wide margin for behavior that, unintentionally or not, can do great harm.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)