- gutvol-d - lists.pglaf.org

bowerbird and buckycat
by dalebird 14 Apr '06

14 Apr '06

bowerbird certainly has a way with words as he finesses his way around obstacles. he reminds me of bucky the cat in _get fuzzy_. look at today's _get fuzzy_ cartoon... http://www.unitedmedia.com/comics/getfuzzy/archive/images/getfuzzy200603663… doesn't bucky remind you of the bird? i wonder what would happen if the bowerbird met the buckycat? lots of feathers and fur flying around. just like a godzilla movie. i admire bowerbird's style. i've decided to embrace some of his personna. henceforth i'll be known as "dalebird". but my poetry sucks, unlike his. this listserve is about pg. i will contribute to real discussion once i learn more about e-books. been downloading quite a few lately from pg. great work, guys (and gals)! sorry for focusing on the bird. i promise to reform! dalebird detergentleman -- Dale Reese dalereese(a)fastmail.fm -- http://www.fastmail.fm - Accessible with your email software or over the web

1 0

re: [gutvol-d] Catalog Subjects
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 14 Apr '06

14 Apr '06

jeroen said: > such things as Dewey or LoC carry historical load we don't need. agreed. dewey, especially, has a lot of socio-political baggage. i just read yesterday that there are something like... well here it is: > http://www.hyperorg.com/backissues/joho-sep03-04.html#dewey > > Of the hundred numbers set aside for topics concerning religion, > 88 — numbers 201-287 — are reserved for Christianity. > Jews and Moslems get just one each. But those single-digit religions > are still doing better than Buddhists (294.3) who share a decimal point > with the Sikhs (294.6) and Jains (294.4), looking up enviously at Christian > "Parish government & administration" which gets its own whole number (254). people who are interested in cataloging issues should read more of this site. it's written by one of the cluetrain manifesto people, and it's really quite good. having said all that, a benefit of numbers from existing systems is that they have already been assigned. so the work becomes getting them, not assigning them, and the former is an order of magnitude easier. > We should go for a nice, multi-facetted, multi-entry classification system for > our books, but developing adding that would be a tremendous lot of work... i'm not sure it would have to be all _that_ difficult. certainly a "first pass" could be done rather simply, and might prove to be a huge head-start. and if the system was built as a wiki, incremental improvement from there might be fairly easy to achieve as well... again, the person doing the website above is working on "latent semantic indexing", so he might be a good person to read for ideas... along these lines too, you might wanna look at this: > http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/bparchive?year=2006& post=2006-04-11,1 -bowerbird

1 0

re: [gutvol-d] oh, by the way, i hope you're getting a good chuckle
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 14 Apr '06

14 Apr '06

jon, don't worry about it. really. i'm not concerned. it's pretty hard for me to lose my sense of humor. you can spend your time on more important things. -bowerbird

2 1

oh, by the way, i hope you're getting a good chuckle
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 14 Apr '06

14 Apr '06

oh, by the way, now even some of my comments that had _already_ been posted on the teleread blog have been removed. "for the good of the community", i'm sure... once the censorship bug bites people, they turn rabid... anyway, i hope you're all getting a good chuckle out of this! -bowerbird

2 1

re: [gutvol-d] don't believe everything you read on the internets
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 14 Apr '06

14 Apr '06

jon said: > That's a bunch of hooey. Anyway, it only shows you are > NOT interested in communicating in an honest, open, > cordial, give/take fashion, but simply to be obnoxious > and to see how you can "best" others. You seem to > enjoy creating a hostile environment where > your only purpose in life is to harass others. thanks for your interpretation, jon. now let's let these fine people be. -bowerbird

1 0

re: [gutvol-d] don't believe everything you read on the internets
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 14 Apr '06

14 Apr '06

> You choose to foster a hostile environment by your messages spin. i carefully tailor my posts to be rorschach blots, open to interpretation; what each person sees in them is informative to me about that person... -bowerbird

2 1

re: [gutvol-d] don't believe everything you read on the internets
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 13 Apr '06

13 Apr '06

like i said, it doesn't matter to me if i'm banned or not, because i want to stop wasting time over there anyway. and since i am certainly not about to change what i say _or_ how i say it, it would only be a matter of time before i was banned eventually, "for the good of the community". besides, jon, with adobe plotting against openreader, you've got much bigger fish to fry than my fat old ass... -bowerbird

2 1

don't believe everything you read on the internets
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 13 Apr '06

13 Apr '06

geez, it's _so_ boring to talk about me, but i figure you deserve to know how the teleread censorship thing has played out. the last 3-4 comments i sent to teleread were "flagged" for "review by an administrator" as "spam" and have never appeared. they weren't controversial comments, just me finishing a few threads in case i was banned. so it appears to me my hall pass has been revoked... but meanwhile, rothman is posting comments saying i am "welcome" there (albeit with huge reservations), and that no one is being censored or even moderated. so don't believe everything you read on the internets! i don't know how to resolve the discrepancy here... perhaps he's willing to tell a great big lie in order to save a little bit of face. or maybe it's "a coincidence" that all of a sudden my comments stopped appearing. whatever the case may be, it's clear that rothman wants only "yes-men" on his blog, and i am not one of those, so i see no need for me to be there, thank you very much. as i told you, my new year's resolution for 2006 was to stop wasting time and energy commenting on his blog. and i actually succeeded for two months, then relapsed when he was in the midst of a campaign to give readers the impression that openreader was _the_ way to get a publicly-shared annotation capability. (it might be _one_ way, but it's certainly not the only way, not by a long shot.) so any uncertainty about whether i've been banned or not doesn't really matter, because i'd just as soon not be there. i am certainly not going to "submit" comments that might never appear, and might have been "edited" when they do. so the banning is helping me to keep my resolution! :+) oh, that doesn't mean i'm going to stop puncturing the hype put out by the rothman/noring spin machine. it just means that i will not be doing it where they control my microphone. it's so silly to think that they can silence me by banning me! cyberspace has no shortage of soapboxes, and branko won't be able to edit me or delete me when i use my own soapbox. but i'll be sure to let the world know he _would_, if he _could_, as demonstrated by the fact that he already _did_... oh, for the record, branko's "editing" consisted of three things. first, he removed my linebreaks; might or might not seem significant to you, but that's irrelevant, it's significant to me; you don't mess with a poet's linebreaks. second, he removed my z.m.l.-style _styling_ markers and replaced them with actual styling. (bold in the one instance.) finally, he uppercased some of my letters. that's a huge no-no. i write my posts the way i do as an expression of my individuality. if anyone thinks i will tolerate their "editing" out that individuality, they're wrong. but even more to the point, _no_one_ should have their comments on a blog be "edited" by the blog's owners. ever. anyway, it will be nice to go back to keeping my 2006 resolution! moreover, it will be fun to pull back my "reality check" and watch, as the rothman/noring machine might spin itself out of control... rothman's delusions are grandly entertaining, i must say. for instance, today he's got an entry saying that there is an "apparent plot to subvert openreader" by adobe and a whole cast of other parties who are "doing all they can to preempt openreader". i bet few of you even knew that this app -- which won't even be released until summer -- is so threatening that it's stirred up secret plans at adobe, and maybe sony, microsoft, and who knows? check it out: > http://www.teleread.org/blog/?p=4647 i don't know about you, but paranoia _this_ grandiose is tremendously amusing to me! heck, it makes me wish i would have been _egging_him_on_ all along, instead of providing a calm and rational counterbalance to his hype. i bet it'd be easy to find "evidence" that supports his fears, because he seems willing to believe some crazy things... it's too late for _me_ to do that now, but if _someone_else_ were to feed his hysteria, it might create some fun reading! ah, the world of e-books. what an interesting "community". :+) anyway, i am sorry to disturb all you fine people digitizing books. you can return to your important work now. thanks for your time. -bowerbird

2 1

the emergence of the "site-specific browser"
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 13 Apr '06

13 Apr '06

there's a new mac app called "pyro" available here: > http://www.karppinen.fi/pyro/ as it says on the site, pyro > demonstrates a new breed of applications > we call site-specific browsers—apps that are > about making a browser-based application > better with client-side technology while > keeping the user interface intact. pyro works with "campfire", a web-based chat service. this kind of application -- one that runs on the users own machines, but connects them with the web -- is how many e-book viewers of the future will be oriented. -bowerbird

1 0

re: [gutvol-d] PG texts in South Africa
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 13 Apr '06

13 Apr '06

hey windows people, do please let me know if this viewer-program is any good, and i'll check it out... -bowerbird

1 0