- gutvol-d - lists.pglaf.org

Re: !@!Re: [gutvol-d] Moving and Removing eBooks
by D. Starner 27 Jan '05

27 Jan '05

"Michael Hart" writes: > As for the recent request to delete Shakespeare #100, I never heard > back from my reply, so I never got to the bottom line reasoning > behind that request. Perhaps it was only because of copyright, > or because it was such an early effort that it needed proofing > to bring it up to today's standards. I sent a message to gutvol-d about it earlier. It's a copyrighted edition of a public domain text, and there's nothing in that file to indicate that the edition was first published in 1931 and isn't just an electronic copy of a public domain edition. And even if it is a 1931 edition, the copyright notices are wrong; electronic editions of texts do not get a new copyright. In many ways, it's the epitome of stuff PG opposes. > There is also great, and worthwhile, concern about the Longfellow > translation of Dante. However, it is also an example that should > be preserved as an indication of history, even if we recommend > the Cary translation or any other as being of better quality. Who cares about Dante; it's Longfellow. Different translations, even different editions are interesting as long as distinguishing marks are included in the file. -- ___________________________________________________________ Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm

4 3

Re: [gutvol-d] Addition to PG History PT1
by Joshua Hutchinson 27 Jan '05

27 Jan '05

*sigh* The only thing your chart proves is that applying Moore's Law to PG production is a waste of time. 1991 is NOT when production started. It is not when PG started. It is just the point in time you chose as the starting point to attach Moore's Law. What people are saying is this: MOORE'S LAW DOES NOT APPLY TO PG PRODUCTION. WE WOULD BE BETTER OFF JUST ANNOUNCING WE HAVE "X" NUMBER OF TEXTS INSTEAD OF COMPARING IT TO A "LAW" THAT ISN'T EVEN MEANT TO BE USED THIS WAY. Admit it, Michael, 1991 is just an arbritrary date. Just because "regular production" started in 1991 ... bull. We had regular, once a year, production before that. Josh PS BTW, if you are going to say no one "read the message above," you might want to actually quote what we supposedly didn't read. As it is, I'm assuming we all read the same thing as you, but had a slightly different level of reading comprehension, since we all seemed to get something completely different from it than you did. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Hart" <hart(a)pglaf.org> To: "The gutvol-d Mailing List" <gutvol-d(a)lists.pglaf.org> Subject: [gutvol-d] Addition to PG History PT1 Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 07:34:58 -0800 (PST) > > > Well, it would appear those in question did not read the message > above, at least they did not reply to any of the points made, so > I am duty bound to explain in a bit more detail, as to how there > are no other choices other than Project Gutenberg's first effort > at a regular production schedule in 1991 as a starting point. > > Here are various starting years and results for Moore's Law used > to project the growth of Project Gutenberg. > > > START TOTAL START TOTAL START TOTAL START TOTAL > YEAR NUMBER YEAR NUMBER YEAR NUMBER YEAR NUMBER ACTUAL > 1971 BASE 1971 1979 BASE 1979 1990 BASE 1990 1993 BASE 1993 NUMBER/YR > > 1971 1 1 1971 > 1974 4 4 1974 > 1977 16 7 1977 > 1980 64 1979 9 9 1980 > 1983 256 1982 36 9 1983 > 1986 1024 1985 144 10 1986 > 1989 4096 1988 576 1990 10 10 1989 > 1992 16384 1991 2304 1993 40 1993 100 42 1992 > 1995 65536 1994 9216 1996 160 1996 400 365 1995 > 1998 262144 1997 36864 1999 640 1999 1600 1550 1998 > 2001 1480576 2000 147456 2002 2560 2002 25600 4260 2001 > 2004 4194304 2003 589824 2005 10240 2005 102400 14944 2004 > 2007 16777216 2006 2359296 2008 40960 2008 409600 ????? 2007 > > As you can plainly see, starting Moore's Law at any other date than ~1991 is > inappropriate not only because the numbers make it obvious, but also because > 1991 was the first year of regular production growth for Project Gutenberg. > > > _______________________________________________ > gutvol-d mailing list > gutvol-d(a)lists.pglaf.org > http://lists.pglaf.org/listinfo.cgi/gutvol-d

8 9

Re: [gutvol-d] etext 1842 Michael Sstrogoff
by Joshua Hutchinson 27 Jan '05

27 Jan '05

Forgive me, but I'm not real sure what the point of this was. strgf10.txt and strgf11.txt are both in the directory listing. However, like all our texts, the latest version of each format is listed in the catalog entry. This is completely normal. Is this an errata report on the HTML? You mention the first letter of each chapter. If you could make your message a little clearer, I or someone more knowledgable will do our best to figure out the answer. Josh ----- Original Message ----- From: "N Wolcott" <nwolcott(a)dsdial.net> To: "Project Gutenberg Volunteer Discussion" <gutvol-d(a)lists.pglaf.org> Subject: [gutvol-d] etext 1842 Michael Sstrogoff Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 11:23:13 -0500 > > The catalogue currently indicates an 1842 -10 html and 1842-11 txt. > Previously I had a 1842-10 txt which no longet appears. These appear to be all > the same text, although 1842-10.txt and t842-11.txt differ in length by 2K > bytes (change in header?). The source for all was apparently Judy Boss, and as > there will be no errors in her text, unless she herself submitted it twice, > all the texts should be identical. Since the html was converted from Boss's > text there is the possibility of an error in the conversion. The html > capitalizes the 1st letter of each chapter, not in the original etext. > Otherwise a robot conversion. Too bad all the versions do not appear on the > catalogue list. > > N Wolcott nwolcott2(a)post.harvard.edu > > > _______________________________________________ > gutvol-d mailing list > gutvol-d(a)lists.pglaf.org > http://lists.pglaf.org/listinfo.cgi/gutvol-d

3 2

Magic books / Image versions
by Juhana Sadeharju 27 Jan '05

27 Jan '05

>From: "David A. Desrosiers" <hacker(a)gnu-designs.com> > > Let me know what you're missing, and I'll try to see if >anything I have might be able to fill in the gaps. Hello. I found the shop again. Perhaps it was a temporary network error when I tried it a year ago. :-( The url is "http://www.lybrary.com/". I have purchased the following set of books (collector's editions): The Art of Modern Conjuring anonymous (?) Later Magic Prof. Hoffmann (1911) Magic Ellis Stanyon (1901) Magicians Tricks Henry Hatton and Adrian Plate (1917) Modern Magic Prof. Hoffmann (1876) More Magic Prof. Hoffmann (1890) Our Magic Nevil Maskelyne and David Devant (1911) Sleight of Hand Edwin Sachs (1885) The Art of Magic T. Nelson Downs (1921) The Magicians Handbook P. T. Selbit (1901) The Modern Conjurer C. Lang Neil (1902) But now the most important: how we could get magic books to the PG collection? Lybrary is doing good in making these books available for a relatively cheap price, and convenietly in electronic format. But "competition" never makes harm. Could volunteers here check if the above books are available? The books I have are in one-image-per-page format but I would like to have better quality images (for readability). The text versions could be produced later if people want them; I prefer the original look available in the image versions. Image versions saves much time too. For example, check "http://theses.mit.edu" for good quality image versions of theses. They would have never made them if they would have choosen the same text approach as PG. We too should prefer image version as a first version -- as a fastest version to produce. A digital camera would be fastest way to digitize the books, I'm sure. But how to match the people who have access to these books, the people who have digital camera (or scanner), and the people (like me) who have time and interest to digitize? I have a scanner if somebody would be nice enough to send me books for the digitization. But for the scanner, I would have to lift up, turn, and slightly press flat the books at every page. The 1890 math books I scanned were not harmed in the process, but the scanner is not best apparatus for digitization in this context. Juhana -- http://music.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/linux-graphics-dev for developers of open source graphics software

1 0

Orphaned Copyrights
by Karl Hagen 27 Jan '05

27 Jan '05

(Originally sent this from the wrong e-mail address, so apologies if it appears twice.) On BoingBoing, I ran across a link to this notice of inquiry, whose importance to PG seems glaringly obvious: SUMMARY: The Copyright Office seeks to examine the issues raised by ``orphan works,'' i.e., copyrighted works whose owners are difficult or even impossible to locate. Concerns have been raised that the uncertainty surrounding ownership of such works might needlessly discourage subsequent creators and users from incorporating such works in new creative efforts or making such works available to the public. This notice requests written comments from all interested parties. Specifically, the Office is seeking comments on whether there are compelling concerns raised by orphan works that merit a legislative, regulatory or other solution, and what type of solution could effectively address these concerns without conflicting with the legitimate interests of authors and right holders. Full document at http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01jan20051800/edocket.access.gpo.go…

2 1

Re: [gutvol-d] Addition to PG History PT1
by Joshua Hutchinson 26 Jan '05

26 Jan '05

----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Hart" <hart(a)pglaf.org> > > Of course, you are welcome to apply any techniques to your own history > of Project Gutenberg, and run them up our flagpole for testing. > The biggest problem I have with your posts lately, Michael, is that you "run something up the flagpole" and then when a bunch of people start trying to shoot it down, you say, "Well, you never complained before, so I'm going to ignore you now." > If there were truly an aversion to using Moore's Law for these purposes, > this aversion would likely have been brought up quite often from the 1991 > to the present. So either the PG group at large can have an opinion on your "flagpole testing" or we do everything as status-quo. Can't have it both ways. Josh

3 2

Copyright Office requests comments on orphaned works
by Karl Hagen 26 Jan '05

26 Jan '05

On BoingBoing, I ran across a link to this notice of inquiry, whose importance to PG seems glaringly obvious: SUMMARY: The Copyright Office seeks to examine the issues raised by ``orphan works,'' i.e., copyrighted works whose owners are difficult or even impossible to locate. Concerns have been raised that the uncertainty surrounding ownership of such works might needlessly discourage subsequent creators and users from incorporating such works in new creative efforts or making such works available to the public. This notice requests written comments from all interested parties. Specifically, the Office is seeking comments on whether there are compelling concerns raised by orphan works that merit a legislative, regulatory or other solution, and what type of solution could effectively address these concerns without conflicting with the legitimate interests of authors and right holders. Full document at http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01jan20051800/edocket.access.gpo.go…

1 0

anyone wanna' translate?
by Aaron Cannon 26 Jan '05

26 Jan '05

Received this message at the cd(a)pglaf.org address. Anyone care to translate? >To: Project Gutenberg <cd(a)pglaf.org> >Subject: Re: Your Project Gutenberg CD/DVD request > >askim! uf ben de daha gecen hafta gutenberg'de geziniyodum. bu maili >alinca anlayamadim o yuzden :) acaba yanlis bi yere mi bastim da boyle >oldu diye merak icinde hatirlamaya calisirken 'kaya'dan seda'ya' >notunu gordum! :) > -- E-mail: cannona(a)fireantproductions.com Skype: cannona MSN Messenger: cannona(a)hotmail.com (Do not send E-mail to the hotmail address.)

3 3

Re: [gutvol-d] Moving and Removing eBooks
by Joshua Hutchinson 25 Jan '05

25 Jan '05

I do remember a discussion last month about a file format that is completely unaccesible (the reader no longer exists). There is one or two ebooks in the PG collection in this format. There was call to deprecate those versions into an OLD subfolder (or something like that) so that people coming to the site weren't confused. No one advocated deletion, only better cataloging. That is probably where Michael's dozen is coming from, because many people thought this was a sensible step to take (and basically only Michael thought it wasn't). Josh ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Dyck" <jmdyck(a)ibiblio.org> To: "Project Gutenberg Volunteer Discussion" <gutvol-d(a)lists.pglaf.org> Subject: Re: [gutvol-d] Moving and Removing eBooks Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 12:27:47 -0800 > > Michael Hart wrote: > > > > However, there are at least a dozen or two very outspoken volunteers at > > Project Gutenberg among a dozen or two thousand of such volunteers, who > > would prefer to delete many of the original Project Gutenberg eBooks in > > favor of replacing them with something else, as opposed to just working > > on them to bring them up to the standards of the modern era of eBooks. > > This sounds like an exaggeration to me. It's true that (on January 4th) > D. Starner asked[1] if we could "get rid of" PG's World Library Editions > of Shakespeare, and appeared to be in favour of doing so. See: > http://lists.pglaf.org/private.cgi/gutvol-d/2005-January/001133.html > However, > > (a) I don't see that anyone agreed with the deletion. So that's one > outspoken volunteer, not "at least a dozen or two". > > (b) I don't see anyone recommending the deletion of any other books. > > If there are posts I've missed that would support the assertion above, > feel free to give links to the archive. > > Mind you, that's assuming that the outspokenness has happened on > gutvol-d. Did it happen somewhere else? > > By the way, I'm curious as to why D. Starner would like to get rid of > those editions. Are they particularly bad/questionable for some reason? > > > > Would someone be willing to do all the work to donate a Britannica 11th > > to Project Gutenberg this year if they thought it would be removed from > > Project Gutenberg a decade after it was first included? > > Yes, I would. And if you ask "Why would you go to all that effort, only > to have the results deleted in 10 years?", I would point out that it > would only be PG's copy that's deleted; the results of my work would > live on, elsewhere on the web. > > -Michael > > _______________________________________________ > gutvol-d mailing list > gutvol-d(a)lists.pglaf.org > http://lists.pglaf.org/listinfo.cgi/gutvol-d

6 11

etext 1842 Michael Sstrogoff
by N Wolcott 25 Jan '05

25 Jan '05

The catalogue currently indicates an 1842 -10 html and 1842-11 txt. Previously I had a 1842-10 txt which no longet appears. These appear to be all the same text, although 1842-10.txt and t842-11.txt differ in length by 2K bytes (change in header?). The source for all was apparently Judy Boss, and as there will be no errors in her text, unless she herself submitted it twice, all the texts should be identical. Since the html was converted from Boss's text there is the possibility of an error in the conversion. The html capitalizes the 1st letter of each chapter, not in the original etext. Otherwise a robot conversion. Too bad all the versions do not appear on the catalogue list. N Wolcott nwolcott2(a)post.harvard.edu

2 1