F0r 477 th3 t3chn0l0gy g33k5 0ut th3r3...

I don't care what anyone else says, Weird Al is educational.

That's why they call it a profession

There has been much talk of changing the way libraries classify their materials, but this is somewhat insulting. Maybe I fall into those "little old librarians" who, according to Florida Senator Ronda Storms (R-Valrico), "are going to have a heart attack" at hearing about systems that professionals have built and are currently building. I'm not saying that librarians should not be constantly thinking of better ways to integrate their users into the loop of their classification schemes. However, there are multiple things to consider when trying to understand why things are classified according to "anachronistic" systems. Let's step back into LSC 101 and talk about why exactly classification is necessary. As impersonal as it sounds, classification is not just for the benefit of the users. It is also for the materials and the intergrity of the library itself as an institution of the housing and preservation of said materials. Dewey, as cumbersome as it can be, is just one of the systems developed by professionals of information science to collocate like materials and separate unlike materials in the most objective and cold, clinical way possible (after we take into account that, yes, librarians are humans too and are far from perfect, albeit schooled in the art of organization).

Why do we want library bookshelves to resemble those of Barnes & Noble -- mysteries over here, biographies over there, etc.? Because it's easy. But what of the distinct goals of bookstores and libraries? Oh yeah, both are into books, that's for sure; but one is looking to attract customers into taking books off their shelves forever, and another is looking to lend you those books to enjoy and bring back. Libraries have been getting into pushing their books as well -- placing bestsellers and new books near the front door to appeal to patrons. This is a good thing -- marketing at its best. However, I find the downside to arranging the whole library like a bookstore in the subjectivity of the arrangement. What's a biography? What if the biography is historical? Should it go in the historical section? Should historical biographies be placed next to sports biographies? What even qualifies as a "biography"? This is why there are systems in place -- to create some order. While I can't call it totally unbiased (from what I've seen, the U.S. takes up a relatively large portion of Dewey number building), I believe it to be less arbitrary than the bookstore model. So it might take a little effort on the part of patrons to learn the ropes. Then again, that's why there are reference librarians, instructional self-serve materials strewn about the library, and, above all, a card catalog (which is now supported by computers which allow for all kinds of searching). As both a librarian-to-be and a library patron, I would take this kind of structured chaos over whimsical chaos anyday.

A loony aside

It was a tough decision, but I'm looking forward to my preservation class next semester. Its close runner-up, rare books, will have to wait for another day. But in the meantime: http://www.illwillpress.com/bookbind22.html

Crude, but gothically amusing. A friend got me into Foamy the Squirrel, and when I realized I hadn't checked out the website a while, I find a short on rare books! It has little to do with rare books, per se, but I still felt like sharing.

Maybe next semester I'll be taught how to treat those old books bound in human flesh.

Mwahahaha...

Can you hear me now?

I've been sick with some sort of cold bug for the last five days, which "forced" me to disconnect with computers, gadgets, and all manners of shiny things that go "ping", as one might imagine.

On that note of technological skepticism, may I present to you a few observations on cell phones. Consider this:


Here we see a piece of performance art done by Nick Rodrigues on the perils of becoming one with the phone. Basically, it's a commentary about how we shut out interactions with other human life forms and goings on in our vicinity because we choose to walk around with the phone attached to our ears, tuning in instead to someone somewhere else.

Okay...information phone calls aside: do we really need to be on these danged things as much as is observed on the streets, in cafes, etc.?

Now consider this (as experienced by myself these past few days):
1) A teenager on her phone, talking loudly, yet casually to a friend about something while simultaneously walking up to a man on a boardwalk who is trying to play Mozart on an elaborate set of water-filled glasses and the gathered crowd who have come to listen to him.
2) Me, pretending to be on my phone to avoid having to say as much as "good morning" to someone in front of my building because it's early in the morning and I don't much feel like talking.

Now, as bad as that second thing makes me sound, what do we see here? In number one, a girl is not only bothering others around her who are trying to listen (mainly me, who turned around and gave her a direct look), but she is also losing out on a chance to enjoy some well-played musical glasses. I mean, it's life -- interesting, beautiful, serene -- happening right in front of you! Your friend, wherever she is, can wait. Or, if it's really that important, you could move out of earshot of the rest of us. Just saying. And then we take a look at yours truly in the second scenario, where I am using the phone to blatantly avoid real life (i.e. people with whom I could potentially be interacting). I may have known exactly what I was doing in this instance, but it still doesn't make my misuse of a portable phone any better than that of Loud Cell Phone Girl.

With all the things our phones can do nowadays (and heck, they can pretty much tuck you into bed and sing you the lullaby Momma used to sing), are we also using them as our own personal phone booths/escape pods? Does it really take a good cold to pry us from our beloved devices and launch us back into real time?

Laying down The Law

If you believe that the United States government (keeping in mind that it was set up as an organization by and for its people, whose sole purpose is supposed to be ensuring us all that we may live, be free, and have the ability to attain happiness in our lives) is overstepping its bounds with the latest in "bail outs" for America -- or are at least keen on/open to the idea -- then this treatise is for you:


Read the work itself in one form or another here or here (yes, it is that important that I gave you two locations to choose from). And for those of you even further intrigued, here's the gentleman's website. Pretty good for a guy who died in 1850.

Aside from the free trade that Bastiat was arguing for in his native France, this work -- written alllllllll the way back in the 19th century -- remains relevant today not only in regard to the economy and trade, but in the way we choose (or seemingly choose) to govern ourselves. Do we protect our citizens from oppression, pillage, and the deprivation of our freedoms as human beings in a civilized society in earnest, or do we allow our government to oppress, pillage, and deprive our citizens because we have made such actions just in the name of "I know what's best for you" laws and practices? If you've ever noticed an unnecessarily large hole in your paycheck or have watched your elected official (local or otherwise) screw you over big time while in office, I believe you know to just what I'm referring.

Seriously, this treatise knows no political party. If you are planning on voting in an election -- or, you know, thinking of becoming part of a democracy at any point in your life -- is it so vital to read up. I'm not just saying this because I'm studying to become a librarian. If we find ourselves sick of repeating history, we must look beyond the colors and the fray of the bodies that govern us to the ideas and concepts that our systems stand for and the great minds who have argued for their preservation and even in some instances for their destruction. Chances are these men and women had something to say. Think about it... if what those we regard as great philosophers argue for and caution is applicable still, we must have not yet listened and/or learned.

Browse this!

I knew there was a preference for Firefox over Internet Explorer these days, but sheesh.

And on that note, ever notice how your HTML varies based on the browser you're using? It's kind of annoying when doing projects, but at the same time shows you how screwed up your code can look to someone who might not have access to the browser you do. I would hope, however, that it also serves as an impetus for developers to synchronize. Then again, there still exists the whole Mac vs. PC dynamic, so maybe it's a little too much to hope for.

WAR. HUH. Good god, ya'll. What is it good for? Absolutely nothin'! (Say it again!)
Nah, but seriously... there's got to be a slew of products out there because, when combined with various personal preferences, the market will inevitably decide. Anyone remember paying for America Online? I do. But just barely.

When doing by hand gets out of hand

As I create my second website-based homework assignment for my information systems class, I find that the more complex I'd like to make it, the more futile it gets to do this kind of thing by hand. I think I get Dreamweaver now.

There is something to be said for handicraft and the time and effort that goes into it. I really enjoy doing HTML by hand. The tags and the Notepad document might look like one hell of a mess, but turn it into a Firefox/Internet Explorer/etc. page and you've got yourself a pretty nifty website. It reminds me of those decoder markers I used as a kid to reveal pictures in something that looked like a black hole on paper.

Oh yeah... that's the stuff...
But once I really get into it, stare at the screen, and sweat it out for several hours, I think, "Wow...as fun as this is, it's taking way too long. And this is probably the seventeenth time I've changed my font." Then I go off on a tangent and think of all the other things we do that are unnecessary because someone/something else will do it for you. There are some things I will let slide into that realm (i.e. not laundering everything by hand, hot water, light bulbs), but come on... there are still those things we tough out the hard way because it's more fun, rewarding, masochistic (hey, to each his own), or tasty (refer to my previous entry).

Again, coming back around to my main point, there is a threshold after which point the costs outweigh the benefits when you're doing something with your own two hands. Why sit and rub two sticks together when you can turn on the stove top (camping trips excluded)? Our day-to-day existence doesn't permit this kind of hard work with its slower-paced, blood, sweat, and tears mentality. We want efficiency because there's always something else that needs to get done. We want to see where any of our effort is getting us, and we want to see it now. Results have always been important, but it seems like now we want results to come before everything else. Hey, when it comes to homework, I don't argue that point so much, but it does make one wonder about the state of humanity's input/output... what we want, where we're going, and how much effort we're willing to put in to see it all happen.