On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 17:47:24 -0300, Nicolas Alvarez wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 18:28:59 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>> 
>>> On 7 Aug 2009 13:02:39 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>>> 
>>>>On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 01:55:24 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 6 Aug 2009 18:58:25 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Contrary to public opinion, I don't actually like the Goons. I'm
>>>>>>> the wrong age group. Too young to appreciate them the first time
>>>>>>> round and too old for the retrospectives. The same goes for the
>>>>>>> Glums and ITMA.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I could see that happening.  :-)
>>>>> 
>>>>> Not hip to like what your parents like. :)
>>>>
>>>>It's a good thing my parents didn't like it, then - otherwise I'd be
>>>>so unhip my bum might fall off. ;-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>> LOL
>> 
>> This is what happens when you're a fan of Douglas Adams. ;-)
> 
> The thread goes highly off-topic and completely random?

Precisely.  And something witty about deadlines gets said, too. ;-)

"I love deadlines.  I love the whooshing sound they make as they fly 
past."

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 7 Aug 2009 14:14:58 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

>>>It's a good thing my parents didn't like it, then - otherwise I'd be so
>>>unhip my bum might fall off. ;-)
>>>
>>>
>> LOL
>
>This is what happens when you're a fan of Douglas Adams. ;-)

Dying, was the only deadline he did not miss. :(

It has been years since I've read anything by him.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 17:47:24 -0300, Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmailcom>
wrote:

>The thread goes highly off-topic and completely random?

Not so random. We are drawing on a shared experience.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 7 Aug 2009 17:05:39 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

>
>Precisely.  And something witty about deadlines gets said, too. ;-)

I posted my "deadline" comment before reading this. So we are drawing on a
shared experience.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 08 Aug 2009 11:23:46 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 7 Aug 2009 17:05:39 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> 
> 
>>Precisely.  And something witty about deadlines gets said, too. ;-)
> 
> I posted my "deadline" comment before reading this. So we are drawing on
> a shared experience.

Indeed we are. :-)

I found DNA's attitude towards deadlines to be somewhat helpful when I 
was working on the books I got published. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 08 Aug 2009 11:18:25 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 7 Aug 2009 14:14:58 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> 
>>>>It's a good thing my parents didn't like it, then - otherwise I'd be
>>>>so unhip my bum might fall off. ;-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>> LOL
>>
>>This is what happens when you're a fan of Douglas Adams. ;-)
> 
> Dying, was the only deadline he did not miss. :(

It's the only one he achieved ahead of schedule, sadly.  49 is too 
early. :(

> It has been years since I've read anything by him.

I listen to Hitchhiker's at least once a year.  I know the primary and 
secondary phases well enough to recite along with the recordings.

He had such a way with metaphors and the English language as a whole - 
"they hung in the air in exactly the same way that bricks don't", for 
example.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 8 Aug 2009 14:05:27 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:


>It's the only one he achieved ahead of schedule, sadly.  49 is too 
>early. :(
>

When the gods speak even authors listen.

>> It has been years since I've read anything by him.
>
>I listen to Hitchhiker's at least once a year.  I know the primary and 
>secondary phases well enough to recite along with the recordings.
>

I think that I prefered the Dirk Gently series. But that may be because HHGTTG
was so cult-ish ;)

>He had such a way with metaphors and the English language as a whole - 
>"they hung in the air in exactly the same way that bricks don't", for 
>example.
>

A bit like Pratchett IMO :)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 8 Aug 2009 14:03:25 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

>I found DNA's attitude towards deadlines to be somewhat helpful when I 
>was working on the books I got published. :-)

My attitude is different. I need them. ;)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 8-8-2009 20:42, Stephen wrote:
> On 8 Aug 2009 14:05:27 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> 
> 
>> It's the only one he achieved ahead of schedule, sadly.  49 is too 
>> early. :(
>>
> 
> When the gods speak even authors listen.
> 
>>> It has been years since I've read anything by him.
>> I listen to Hitchhiker's at least once a year.  I know the primary and 
>> secondary phases well enough to recite along with the recordings.
>>
> 
> I think that I prefered the Dirk Gently series. But that may be because HHGTTG
> was so cult-ish ;)
> 
>> He had such a way with metaphors and the English language as a whole - 
>> "they hung in the air in exactly the same way that bricks don't", for 
>> example.
>>
> 
> A bit like Pratchett IMO :)

Terry is more into puns and taking things literally for humorous effect. 
Later books are increasingly more about the story than about language or 
humor (IMHO). Douglas was overflowing with short stories and small ideas 
that had to find a way into a framework that was suitable for a book.
Douglas is more quotable* because many of the ideas and observations are 
already brought back to one-liners by him but Terry has written so much 
more that he has had time to catch up on the number of ideas.

*) It is a pity that the story of the lizards has too much context. 
Sometimes I would like to quote 'otherwise the wrong lizard might get 
in' but that would need too much explaining.

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 08 Aug 2009 21:13:02 +0200, andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:

>
>Terry is more into puns and taking things literally for humorous effect. 
>Later books are increasingly more about the story than about language or 
>humor (IMHO). Douglas was overflowing with short stories and small ideas 
>that had to find a way into a framework that was suitable for a book.
>Douglas is more quotable* because many of the ideas and observations are 
>already brought back to one-liners by him but Terry has written so much 
>more that he has had time to catch up on the number of ideas.
>

True

>*) It is a pity that the story of the lizards has too much context. 
>Sometimes I would like to quote 'otherwise the wrong lizard might get 
>in' but that would need too much explaining.

I can't remember that one but I think that I have downloaded it. I'll look it
up.

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 8-8-2009 22:29, Stephen wrote:
> On Sat, 08 Aug 2009 21:13:02 +0200, andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> 
>> Terry is more into puns and taking things literally for humorous effect. 
>> Later books are increasingly more about the story than about language or 
>> humor (IMHO). Douglas was overflowing with short stories and small ideas 
>> that had to find a way into a framework that was suitable for a book.
>> Douglas is more quotable* because many of the ideas and observations are 
>> already brought back to one-liners by him but Terry has written so much 
>> more that he has had time to catch up on the number of ideas.
>>
> 
> True
> 
>> *) It is a pity that the story of the lizards has too much context. 
>> Sometimes I would like to quote 'otherwise the wrong lizard might get 
>> in' but that would need too much explaining.
> 
> I can't remember that one but I think that I have downloaded it. I'll look it
> up.

from memory: There is this planet where the human population is rules by 
lizards. It is still a democracy, all humans can vote but only lizards 
can be elected. I think Arthur asks in astonishment: 'why do you vote?' 
to which the answer is 'otherwise the wrong lizard might get in'.

I think it was meant as a reference to the British system where you can 
only elect politicians that have been to one or two colleges. It is 
scarily true of most democracies though.

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 08 Aug 2009 19:42:23 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 8 Aug 2009 14:05:27 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> 
>>It's the only one he achieved ahead of schedule, sadly.  49 is too
>>early. :(
>>
> When the gods speak even authors listen.

Ironic given Adams' beliefs. :-)

>>> It has been years since I've read anything by him.
>>
>>I listen to Hitchhiker's at least once a year.  I know the primary and
>>secondary phases well enough to recite along with the recordings.
>>
>>
> I think that I prefered the Dirk Gently series. But that may be because
> HHGTTG was so cult-ish ;)

Gently was good as well, but I started with Hitchhiker's and there is an 
awful lot of depth there (as indeed there is in both series).

>>He had such a way with metaphors and the English language as a whole -
>>"they hung in the air in exactly the same way that bricks don't", for
>>example.
>>
> A bit like Pratchett IMO :)

A bit, perhaps.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 08 Aug 2009 21:13:02 +0200, andrel wrote:

> On 8-8-2009 20:42, Stephen wrote:
>> On 8 Aug 2009 14:05:27 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> It's the only one he achieved ahead of schedule, sadly.  49 is too
>>> early. :(
>>>
>>>
>> When the gods speak even authors listen.
>> 
>>>> It has been years since I've read anything by him.
>>> I listen to Hitchhiker's at least once a year.  I know the primary and
>>> secondary phases well enough to recite along with the recordings.
>>>
>>>
>> I think that I prefered the Dirk Gently series. But that may be because
>> HHGTTG was so cult-ish ;)
>> 
>>> He had such a way with metaphors and the English language as a whole -
>>> "they hung in the air in exactly the same way that bricks don't", for
>>> example.
>>>
>>>
>> A bit like Pratchett IMO :)
> 
> Terry is more into puns and taking things literally for humorous effect.
> Later books are increasingly more about the story than about language or
> humor (IMHO). Douglas was overflowing with short stories and small ideas
> that had to find a way into a framework that was suitable for a book.
> Douglas is more quotable* because many of the ideas and observations are
> already brought back to one-liners by him but Terry has written so much
> more that he has had time to catch up on the number of ideas.

All good points.

> *) It is a pity that the story of the lizards has too much context.
> Sometimes I would like to quote 'otherwise the wrong lizard might get
> in' but that would need too much explaining.

Not to those who know it. :-)

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 00:12:14 +0200, andrel wrote:

> from memory: There is this planet where the human population is rules by
> lizards. It is still a democracy, all humans can vote but only lizards
> can be elected. I think Arthur asks in astonishment: 'why do you vote?'
> to which the answer is 'otherwise the wrong lizard might get in'.
> 
> I think it was meant as a reference to the British system where you can
> only elect politicians that have been to one or two colleges. It is
> scarily true of most democracies though.

Actually, it was more of a slap at the US two-party system.  Anyone can 
be elected, but the humans always vote for lizards out of one party or 
the other, because otherwise the wrong lizard might get in (ie, if a good 
human were put up as a candidate, it might split the vote between the 
"good lizard" and the human).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 08 Aug 2009 19:52:56 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 8 Aug 2009 14:03:25 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> 
>>I found DNA's attitude towards deadlines to be somewhat helpful when I
>>was working on the books I got published. :-)
> 
> My attitude is different. I need them. ;)

Oh, I need them, too, but I always was pushing right up against them, if 
not just slightly past them to get each chapter turned in.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 9 Aug 2009 00:01:32 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

>On Sat, 08 Aug 2009 19:52:56 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 8 Aug 2009 14:03:25 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> 
>>>I found DNA's attitude towards deadlines to be somewhat helpful when I
>>>was working on the books I got published. :-)
>> 
>> My attitude is different. I need them. ;)
>
>Oh, I need them, too, but I always was pushing right up against them, if 
>not just slightly past them to get each chapter turned in.
>

When I am writing specs they are always pushing me :)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 00:12:14 +0200, andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:

>
>I think it was meant as a reference to the British system where you can 
>only elect politicians that have been to one or two colleges. It is 
>scarily true of most democracies though.

I think that Jim is right it is more a criticism of the American political
system. In Britain we have effectively had a three party system since the late
19th century and have a few small parties and independent members of parliament.

You may be being confused with our class system where the majority of English
MPs have traditionally been educated at either Oxford or Cambridge.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 8 Aug 2009 23:59:07 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

>> When the gods speak even authors listen.
>
>Ironic given Adams' beliefs. :-)
>

Tough! :)


>> I think that I prefered the Dirk Gently series. But that may be because
>> HHGTTG was so cult-ish ;)
>
>Gently was good as well, but I started with Hitchhiker's and there is an 
>awful lot of depth there (as indeed there is in both series).
>

I realise now that I've not read the whole series. I thought that I had.

>> A bit like Pratchett IMO :)
>
>A bit, perhaps.

A bit in a way ;)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 15:28:08 +0100, Stephen wrote:

>>Oh, I need them, too, but I always was pushing right up against them, if
>>not just slightly past them to get each chapter turned in.
>>
> When I am writing specs they are always pushing me :)

I know the feeling. :-)

That particular DNA quote is actually on the front of the returns desk at 
our local public library.  :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 15:50:00 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 8 Aug 2009 23:59:07 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> 
>>> When the gods speak even authors listen.
>>
>>Ironic given Adams' beliefs. :-)
>>
> Tough! :)

LOL

>>> I think that I prefered the Dirk Gently series. But that may be
>>> because HHGTTG was so cult-ish ;)
>>
>>Gently was good as well, but I started with Hitchhiker's and there is an
>>awful lot of depth there (as indeed there is in both series).
>>
> I realise now that I've not read the whole series. I thought that I had.

Yeah, there's 5 books total.  Last one's a bit of a downer, though.  The 
radio dramatizations of 3-5 were pretty good, too.

>>> A bit like Pratchett IMO :)
>>
>>A bit, perhaps.
> 
> A bit in a way ;)

Well, yeah, not a mirror image by any stretch. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 9-8-2009 16:47, Stephen wrote:
> On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 00:12:14 +0200, andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> 
>> I think it was meant as a reference to the British system where you can 
>> only elect politicians that have been to one or two colleges. It is 
>> scarily true of most democracies though.
> 
> I think that Jim is right it is more a criticism of the American political
> system. In Britain we have effectively had a three party system since the late
> 19th century and have a few small parties and independent members of parliament.
> 
> You may be being confused with our class system where the majority of English
> MPs have traditionally been educated at either Oxford or Cambridge.

I think that is basically saying that all politicians (except local 
ones?) are either from Oxford or Cambridge, but perhaps I was indeed 
more thinking of Eton. I am not extremely familiar with British 
political system, but I had the impression that it is a bit of an old 
boys network, where the labour and the tory leader had been always 
together at school except when the age difference was too big.
You may both be right that it is about the US system, I think it was in 
a later book and he was more exposed to the strangeness of the US at 
that time than merely to the silliness of British politics.

Post a reply to this message

On 9 Aug 2009 13:09:56 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

>That particular DNA quote is actually on the front of the returns desk at 
>our local public library.  :-)
LOL
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 21:52:00 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 9 Aug 2009 13:09:56 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> 
>>That particular DNA quote is actually on the front of the returns desk
>>at our local public library.  :-)
> LOL

Yeah, I thought it an absolutely inspired selection. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 9 Aug 2009 17:25:47 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

>On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 21:52:00 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 9 Aug 2009 13:09:56 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> 
>>>That particular DNA quote is actually on the front of the returns desk
>>>at our local public library.  :-)
>> LOL
>
>Yeah, I thought it an absolutely inspired selection. :-)
>

Does your library fine you for late returns?

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 00:19:11 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 9 Aug 2009 17:25:47 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> 
>>On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 21:52:00 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> On 9 Aug 2009 13:09:56 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>>> 
>>>>That particular DNA quote is actually on the front of the returns desk
>>>>at our local public library.  :-)
>>> LOL
>>
>>Yeah, I thought it an absolutely inspired selection. :-)
>>
>>
> Does your library fine you for late returns?

Indeed they do, but not very much. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 9 Aug 2009 20:49:44 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

>> Does your library fine you for late returns?
>
>Indeed they do, but not very much. :-)

Westminster libraries charge 25p per day per book up to a limit of GBP 10 per
book. :(
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 11:16:55 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 9 Aug 2009 20:49:44 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> 
>>> Does your library fine you for late returns?
>>
>>Indeed they do, but not very much. :-)
> 
> Westminster libraries charge 25p per day per book up to a limit of GBP
> 10 per book. :(

Yeah, here it's $0.20/day except for videos and DVDs, which are $1.00/
day, to a max of $6.00 per item per loan period.  The length of time 
items can be borrowed for vary depending on the type of item - either 28 
days or 14 days.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 10 Aug 2009 10:44:47 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

>On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 11:16:55 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 9 Aug 2009 20:49:44 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> 
>>>> Does your library fine you for late returns?
>>>
>>>Indeed they do, but not very much. :-)
>> 
>> Westminster libraries charge 25p per day per book up to a limit of GBP
>> 10 per book. :(
>
>Yeah, here it's $0.20/day except for videos and DVDs, which are $1.00/
>day, to a max of $6.00 per item per loan period.  The length of time 
>items can be borrowed for vary depending on the type of item - either 28 
>days or 14 days.
>

That's good. I don't know what I'd do without public libraries.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 15:26:21 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> That's good. I don't know what I'd do without public libraries.

I used to spend a lot of time at the library when I was younger, but not 
so much now.  I just got my new library card a few months ago, so maybe 
that'll change.

We do have a very good library system here in Utah, one of the best in 
the US (so I hear).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

In article <4a81821d@news.povray.org>,
Jim Henderson wrote:

> On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 15:26:21 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>> That's good. I don't know what I'd do without public libraries.
>
> I used to spend a lot of time at the library when I was younger, but not 
> so much now.  I just got my new library card a few months ago, so maybe 
> that'll change.
>
> We do have a very good library system here in Utah, one of the best in 
> the US (so I hear).

I used to think that no one could beat Ohio. New Jersey certainly
doesn't. Do you know how much Princeton would charge you for a library
card you being a non-student? Some 300 dollars per semester! Call
them to check. 

I figured it would be a lot better to go to the library, have a look
at books I *might* want to read a substantial part of, and just buy
them off of the Internet. How many books does one read in a semester?

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 11:25:39 -0400, Daniel Bastos wrote:

> In article <4a81821d@news.povray.org>, Jim Henderson wrote:
> 
>> On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 15:26:21 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> That's good. I don't know what I'd do without public libraries.
>>
>> I used to spend a lot of time at the library when I was younger, but
>> not so much now.  I just got my new library card a few months ago, so
>> maybe that'll change.
>>
>> We do have a very good library system here in Utah, one of the best in
>> the US (so I hear).
> 
> I used to think that no one could beat Ohio. New Jersey certainly
> doesn't. Do you know how much Princeton would charge you for a library
> card you being a non-student? Some 300 dollars per semester! Call them
> to check.
> 
> I figured it would be a lot better to go to the library, have a look at
> books I *might* want to read a substantial part of, and just buy them
> off of the Internet. How many books does one read in a semester?

I'd believe that.  Libraries are funded by taxpayer dollars, so if you're 
not a taxpayer, you typically would have to pay for a card (or just not 
be allowed to use the resources).

Something along these lines was highlighted recently on The Colbert 
Report - a kid who was helping the library promote reading ended up being 
determined to be not located in the area where taxes went to paying for 
the library, so his card was revoked.  He did later get it back, though, 
after a stink was raised in the press (and Colbert helped with that no 
doubt).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 11-8-2009 18:29, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 11:25:39 -0400, Daniel Bastos wrote:
> 
>> In article <4a81821d@news.povray.org>, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 15:26:21 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>>
>>>> That's good. I don't know what I'd do without public libraries.
>>> I used to spend a lot of time at the library when I was younger, but
>>> not so much now.  I just got my new library card a few months ago, so
>>> maybe that'll change.
>>>
>>> We do have a very good library system here in Utah, one of the best in
>>> the US (so I hear).
>> I used to think that no one could beat Ohio. New Jersey certainly
>> doesn't. Do you know how much Princeton would charge you for a library
>> card you being a non-student? Some 300 dollars per semester! Call them
>> to check.
>>
>> I figured it would be a lot better to go to the library, have a look at
>> books I *might* want to read a substantial part of, and just buy them
>> off of the Internet. How many books does one read in a semester?
> 
> I'd believe that.  Libraries are funded by taxpayer dollars, so if you're 
> not a taxpayer, you typically would have to pay for a card (or just not 
> be allowed to use the resources).
> 
> Something along these lines was highlighted recently on The Colbert 
> Report - a kid who was helping the library promote reading ended up being 
> determined to be not located in the area where taxes went to paying for 
> the library, so his card was revoked.  He did later get it back, though, 
> after a stink was raised in the press (and Colbert helped with that no 
> doubt).

Call me a stupid foreigner, but if he wasn't within the area of this 
public library he was within that of another one and not using that 
facility. It is all taxpayer money one way or another, so what is the 
point here?

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 21:37:20 +0200, andrel wrote:

> Call me a stupid foreigner, 

I refuse. :-)

> but if he wasn't within the area of this
> public library he was within that of another one and not using that
> facility. It is all taxpayer money one way or another, so what is the
> point here?

If I remember correctly, the issue was that the part of the township he's 
in (where the library is, ironically) doesn't pay taxes that cover the 
library system, but there isn't another "local" library (ie, the library 
in question *is* his local library).

I'll have to dig the clip up - it's on ComedyCentral.com, I just don't 
remember what date it was.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

In article <4a819c66@news.povray.org>,
Jim Henderson wrote:

> I'd believe that.  Libraries are funded by taxpayer dollars, so if you're 
> not a taxpayer, you typically would have to pay for a card (or just not 
> be allowed to use the resources).

By the way, in Princeton's case, they didn't ask whether I was from
Jersey or anywhere. They simply said that if I was not a tuition
payer, then I needed to pay some 300 dollars per semester for library
access.

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 18:18:28 -0400, Daniel Bastos wrote:

> In article <4a819c66@news.povray.org>, Jim Henderson wrote:
> 
>> I'd believe that.  Libraries are funded by taxpayer dollars, so if
>> you're not a taxpayer, you typically would have to pay for a card (or
>> just not be allowed to use the resources).
> 
> By the way, in Princeton's case, they didn't ask whether I was from
> Jersey or anywhere. They simply said that if I was not a tuition payer,
> then I needed to pay some 300 dollars per semester for library access.

That makes sense, since a portion of tuition would go to fund the library 
and its collection.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

In article <4a820953$1@news.povray.org>,
Jim Henderson wrote:

> On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 18:18:28 -0400, Daniel Bastos wrote:
>
>> In article <4a819c66@news.povray.org>, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> 
>>> I'd believe that.  Libraries are funded by taxpayer dollars, so if
>>> you're not a taxpayer, you typically would have to pay for a card (or
>>> just not be allowed to use the resources).
>> 
>> By the way, in Princeton's case, they didn't ask whether I was from
>> Jersey or anywhere. They simply said that if I was not a tuition payer,
>> then I needed to pay some 300 dollars per semester for library access.
>
> That makes sense, since a portion of tuition would go to fund the library 
> and its collection.

Hm. Are you saying that it makes sense for one to use a library if and
only if one can afford its price? (Or only in the Princeton's case? In
which case, why is Princeton special?)

Post a reply to this message

On 08/11/09 19:35, Daniel Bastos wrote:
> Hm. Are you saying that it makes sense for one to use a library if and
> only if one can afford its price? (Or only in the Princeton's case? In
> which case, why is Princeton special?)

	Are you referring to the university library?

	If so, it's understandable - being a private library.

-- 
Wear short sleeves!  Support your right to bare arms!

Post a reply to this message

"David H. Burns" <dhb### [at] cherokeetelnet> wrote:
> Thanks. :) like this or maybe like this :]?

Incidentally, AIM is a bad place to discuss c code... );

 - Ricky

Post a reply to this message

In article <4a821935$1@news.povray.org>,
Neeum Zawan wrote:

> On 08/11/09 19:35, Daniel Bastos wrote:
>> Hm. Are you saying that it makes sense for one to use a library if and
>> only if one can afford its price? (Or only in the Princeton's case? In
>> which case, why is Princeton special?)
>
> 	Are you referring to the university library?

Yes, I am.

> 	If so, it's understandable - being a private library.

I think you're saying yes to the first question. But let's consider
your comment here; that is, the privateness of Princeton. I won't ask
you to define `private.' I think that would be difficult. I will ask
something else. If the government funds Princeton in some ways, does
that increases Princeton's responsibility to be together with the
taxpayers when they actively seek to educate themselves?

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 20:35:05 -0400, Daniel Bastos wrote:

> In article <4a820953$1@news.povray.org>, Jim Henderson wrote:
> 
>> On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 18:18:28 -0400, Daniel Bastos wrote:
>>
>>> In article <4a819c66@news.povray.org>, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> 
>>>> I'd believe that.  Libraries are funded by taxpayer dollars, so if
>>>> you're not a taxpayer, you typically would have to pay for a card (or
>>>> just not be allowed to use the resources).
>>> 
>>> By the way, in Princeton's case, they didn't ask whether I was from
>>> Jersey or anywhere. They simply said that if I was not a tuition
>>> payer, then I needed to pay some 300 dollars per semester for library
>>> access.
>>
>> That makes sense, since a portion of tuition would go to fund the
>> library and its collection.
> 
> Hm. Are you saying that it makes sense for one to use a library if and
> only if one can afford its price? (Or only in the Princeton's case? In
> which case, why is Princeton special?)

Libraries cost money.  Someone's gotta pay for them.  Students pay 
through their tuition.  If you don't pay tuition, then sure, it seems 
reasonable that they would charge.  It's not like Princeton's library is 
a "public library" (ie, paid for by taxpayer money).

I'm saying it makes sense that they would charge a non-student a premium 
to use the facility.  Staff doesn't work for free, books aren't free, 
utilities have to be paid, etc.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

In article <4a8238a2$1@news.povray.org>,
Jim Henderson wrote:

> On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 20:35:05 -0400, Daniel Bastos wrote:
>
>> In article <4a820953$1@news.povray.org>, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> 
>>> On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 18:18:28 -0400, Daniel Bastos wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <4a819c66@news.povray.org>, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> I'd believe that.  Libraries are funded by taxpayer dollars, so if
>>>>> you're not a taxpayer, you typically would have to pay for a card (or
>>>>> just not be allowed to use the resources).
>>>> 
>>>> By the way, in Princeton's case, they didn't ask whether I was from
>>>> Jersey or anywhere. They simply said that if I was not a tuition
>>>> payer, then I needed to pay some 300 dollars per semester for library
>>>> access.
>>>
>>> That makes sense, since a portion of tuition would go to fund the
>>> library and its collection.
>> 
>> Hm. Are you saying that it makes sense for one to use a library if and
>> only if one can afford its price? (Or only in the Princeton's case? In
>> which case, why is Princeton special?)
>
> Libraries cost money.  Someone's gotta pay for them.  Students pay 
> through their tuition.  If you don't pay tuition, then sure, it seems 
> reasonable that they would charge.  It's not like Princeton's library is 
> a "public library" (ie, paid for by taxpayer money).

It actually isn't clear to me that it is not paid for by taxpayer
money. I have the impression that all universities are government
funded. I consider this from the fact that researchers are always
writing justifications for the grants they get from the government. If
they justify to the government, then I think the government is paying
them something. So whether you research in Princeton, MIT, or Florida
State University, it does seem that the government funds your
research. Researchers write papers and books about their studies.
These books and publications are the ones that you usually find in a
university library and not in a public library. 

It's not clear, then, that this is not paid for by taxpayer money.

Post a reply to this message

On 08/11/09 21:51, Daniel Bastos wrote:
> something else. If the government funds Princeton in some ways, does
> that increases Princeton's responsibility to be together with the
> taxpayers when they actively seek to educate themselves?

	Government funding shouldn't be the _only_ reason (think of all those 
bailouts).

	But if the funding is going to support the library, then a case can be 
made (at least, say, for a discounted library card).

-- 
If Wile E. Coyote had enough money to buy all those Acme goods, why 
didn't he just buy dinner?

Post a reply to this message

On 08/11/09 23:22, Daniel Bastos wrote:
> money. I have the impression that all universities are government
> funded. I consider this from the fact that researchers are always
> writing justifications for the grants they get from the government. If
> they justify to the government, then I think the government is paying
> them something. So whether you research in Princeton, MIT, or Florida
> State University, it does seem that the government funds your
> research. Researchers write papers and books about their studies.
> These books and publications are the ones that you usually find in a
> university library and not in a public library.

	Yes, but the funding goes towards research, not maintaining the 
library. Think of it as a perpetual bailout. The government does it as 
an investment: They produce good research with that money, and sooner or 
later a lot of it will filter to benefit society in one form or another.

	However, in cases like NIH grants, they do put certain conditions: All 
journal papers that resulted from research funded by the NIH has to be 
open access (i.e. published in a manner that the public can view it for 
free).

	I would like to see how much of the money Princeton gets comes from the 
government. It wouldn't surprise me if it's miniscule compared to 
private sources (investments, etc).

-- 
If Wile E. Coyote had enough money to buy all those Acme goods, why 
didn't he just buy dinner?

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 00:22:26 -0400, Daniel Bastos wrote:

> It actually isn't clear to me that it is not paid for by taxpayer money.

It's a private university.  Therefore, the funding is from private 
donations and tuition.

> I have the impression that all universities are government funded. 

<shrug>  That's not the case.  I went to a private university in Florida.

> I
> consider this from the fact that researchers are always writing
> justifications for the grants they get from the government.

Government grants for research aren't applied to a library's funding, 
they're for the research.  Completely different areas.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

In article <4a82d0a0$1@news.povray.org>,
Neeum Zawan wrote:

> On 08/11/09 21:51, Daniel Bastos wrote:
>> something else. If the government funds Princeton in some ways, does
>> that increases Princeton's responsibility to be together with the
>> taxpayers when they actively seek to educate themselves?
>
> 	Government funding shouldn't be the _only_ reason (think of all those 
> bailouts).

I'm sorry. Reason for what? To increase Princeton's responsibility? I
agree. Indeed, there are other factors that are even stronger, but
less quantitative. Money is measurable, so I think it is okay to look
there first. 

> 	But if the funding is going to support the library, then a case can be 
> made (at least, say, for a discounted library card).

I agree. At least. 

But I think that one problem here is your ``if.'' It's not clear to me
what is not support for the library. 

For example, if some money goes towards, say, research in mathematical
topology, some may say that that has nothing to do with the library.
But to me that is very short sighted because the guy who gets this
money writes books that go into that library, and he needs that
library to study, so he reads many books from that library, which were
put there because they exist, and they exist because they were written
by people like him, who also got money from the government.

Not every book is written like that. You can go into the groceries
store and find lots of books that have no easy ties with government
money. I believe one can argue strongly in favor of not letting anyone
read those books without some direct payment.

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 12:23:57 -0400, Daniel Bastos wrote:

> But
> to me that is very short sighted because the guy who gets this money
> writes books that go into that library, and he needs that library to
> study, so he reads many books from that library, which were put there
> because they exist, and they exist because they were written by people
> like him, who also got money from the government.

By that logic, the money that I pay to buy a box of Fruit Loops goes to 
the library, because some worker somewhere who benefits from my payment 
for the cereal might someday go to school there and pay tuition, thus 
"subsidizing" my access to the materials in the library?  That's tenuous 
at best.

Question:  Does Princeton let you go into the library without paying, and 
just not let you borrow materials?  I know with the Salt Lake City public 
library, you don't need a library card to enter the library, just to 
borrow materials.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

In article <4a82efe1$1@news.povray.org>,
Jim Henderson wrote:

> On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 12:23:57 -0400, Daniel Bastos wrote:
>
>> But
>> to me that is very short sighted because the guy who gets this money
>> writes books that go into that library, and he needs that library to
>> study, so he reads many books from that library, which were put there
>> because they exist, and they exist because they were written by people
>> like him, who also got money from the government.
>
> By that logic, the money that I pay to buy a box of Fruit Loops goes to 
> the library, because some worker somewhere who benefits from my payment 
> for the cereal might someday go to school there and pay tuition, thus 
> "subsidizing" my access to the materials in the library?  That's tenuous 
> at best.

I disagree that my paragraph up there is tenuous. I do think your
example is tenuous. I do agree that, formally, the formal proposition
that expresses the argument is a contingency; so, indeed, formal logic
alone will not give us further relevant knowledge. 

> Question:  Does Princeton let you go into the library without paying, and 
> just not let you borrow materials?  I know with the Salt Lake City public 
> library, you don't need a library card to enter the library, just to 
> borrow materials.

I didn't test it, but I don't think they'd see any problems in having
random people reading books in there. 

Incidentally, I think that they actually see a problem in opposing
letting random people in. They would have to check everyone's cards
upon entrance. A real pain in the ass, and surely to upset students. :-)

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 12:49:14 -0400, Daniel Bastos wrote:

>> By that logic, the money that I pay to buy a box of Fruit Loops goes to
>> the library, because some worker somewhere who benefits from my payment
>> for the cereal might someday go to school there and pay tuition, thus
>> "subsidizing" my access to the materials in the library?  That's
>> tenuous at best.
> 
> I disagree that my paragraph up there is tenuous. I do think your
> example is tenuous. I do agree that, formally, the formal proposition
> that expresses the argument is a contingency; so, indeed, formal logic
> alone will not give us further relevant knowledge.

There's really not a lot of difference between the two - the idea you're 
proposing is that indirect payment (money going to someone from a 
government grant that might go to creating something that might be kept 
in the library) should "count" towards allowing anyone to use the library.

>> Question:  Does Princeton let you go into the library without paying,
>> and just not let you borrow materials?  I know with the Salt Lake City
>> public library, you don't need a library card to enter the library,
>> just to borrow materials.
> 
> I didn't test it, but I don't think they'd see any problems in having
> random people reading books in there.

So then the only issue is that you cannot borrow materials.  That reduces 
the argument really since it's not a question of access.

> Incidentally, I think that they actually see a problem in opposing
> letting random people in. They would have to check everyone's cards upon
> entrance. A real pain in the ass, and surely to upset students. :-)

Agreed.

Post a reply to this message

On 08/12/09 11:23, Daniel Bastos wrote:
> I'm sorry. Reason for what? To increase Princeton's responsibility? I
> agree. Indeed, there are other factors that are even stronger, but
> less quantitative. Money is measurable, so I think it is okay to look
> there first.

	No - I meant that the mere fact that they get funds from the university 
is not reason enough to get free access to the library. Would you also 
then demand free access to their computer facilities? Chemistry labs?

	I invoked the bailout as an example of banks/companies getting 
government money, but with no (or little) suggestion that you or I 
should have free products.

> I agree. At least.
>
> But I think that one problem here is your ``if.'' It's not clear to me
> what is not support for the library.
>
> For example, if some money goes towards, say, research in mathematical
> topology, some may say that that has nothing to do with the library.
> But to me that is very short sighted because the guy who gets this
> money writes books that go into that library, and he needs that
> library to study, so he reads many books from that library, which were
> put there because they exist, and they exist because they were written
> by people like him, who also got money from the government.

	The link between government grants and the books that academics publish 
is not that strong. Most academics who get grants never publish books, 
to begin with. And many academics (particularly of the mathematics 
variety - they get very few grants) publish even though they have no grants.

	But your analogy is closer to the mark I made elsewhere: That some 
government agencies require that research papers published using their 
grants *must* be freely available to the public.

	In at least the universities I've been at, the money distribution of 
the research grants that professors get is somewhat cleanly defined: 
Some percentage goes to the department, and some percentage goes to the 
college - not sure about the university as a whole. May be different in 
private universities.

-- 
If Wile E. Coyote had enough money to buy all those Acme goods, why 
didn't he just buy dinner?

Post a reply to this message

On 08/12/09 11:37, Jim Henderson wrote:
> Question:  Does Princeton let you go into the library without paying, and
> just not let you borrow materials?  I know with the Salt Lake City public
> library, you don't need a library card to enter the library, just to
> borrow materials.

	I know one Ivy League university whose library does not even let you 
enter the building unless you have some sort of card...

-- 
If Wile E. Coyote had enough money to buy all those Acme goods, why 
didn't he just buy dinner?

Post a reply to this message