If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Upworthy)   What do you do when the Tea Party tries to block a .7% tax increase so your library can stay open? You start a "Close the library - Join the Book Burning Party" campaign to disgust voters into voting to keep the library open, of course   (upworthy.com) divider line 336
    More: Cool, library  
•       •       •

13968 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 Jun 2012 at 8:38 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



336 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-06-20 01:18:11 AM  

GoldSpider: Sylvia_Bandersnatch: GoldSpider: intelligent comment below: GoldSpider: buggy-whip makers.


Finally, the alt outs himself

yes, such a unique phrase you igorant f*ck.

Then again..

Oh com'on, he's so easy to get worked up into a lather. I couldn't resist.


So, you're just a turd, then. Got it.
 
2012-06-20 01:19:35 AM  

Sylvia_Bandersnatch: So, you're just a turd, then. Got it.


Everyone needs a hobby, even at 1AM.
 
2012-06-20 01:22:31 AM  

GoldSpider: Sylvia_Bandersnatch: GoldSpider: intelligent comment below: GoldSpider: buggy-whip makers.


Finally, the alt outs himself

yes, such a unique phrase you igorant f*ck.

Then again..

Oh com'on, he's so easy to get worked up into a lather. I couldn't resist.


Go on...
 
2012-06-20 01:25:37 AM  

cretinbob: Lanctwa: A 0.7% increase in total?

No. I'm sure this has already been explained but it bears repeating. I think your whole post sums up the average person's cluelessness about how this shiat works nicely.


It's 0.7% of what you pay now. so your statement of A 0.7% increase of current tax? 0.7% over $3240 is $22.68 more per year. If that is the case.... I'm fine with that. is correct.


It's also a 0.7 mill rate which is different still.

My first statement is correct-ish, the actual amounts should be 1/10 the amounts I had provided.

They wanted to add an additional 0.07% (not 0.7%) to the property tax.

It's not the second statement that you are claiming it is.
 
2012-06-20 01:32:03 AM  

Wangiss: Oh com'on, he's so easy to get worked up into a lather. I couldn't resist.

Go on...


You're looking for the Sandusky thread.
 
2012-06-20 01:42:55 AM  
What they should have done is cut taxes, then borrow the money from China at a brutal interest rate. After that, the head of the library could step down and appoint a new guy. And we'd all blame him for the library being in so much debt.
 
2012-06-20 01:58:15 AM  

GoldSpider: Oh com'on, he's so easy to get worked up into a lather. I couldn't resist.



What do you mean, worked up? How am I worked up?
 
2012-06-20 01:59:11 AM  

GoldSpider: Sylvia_Bandersnatch: So, you're just a turd, then. Got it.

Everyone needs a hobby, even at 1AM.



You just admitted to trolling. Isn't that against Fark rules?
 
2012-06-20 01:59:19 AM  
obviously it is the local government that wants the library to close, if they cant trim the rest of the budget by the small amount an .7 mil increase would bring, then they obviously dont care about the library.
 
2012-06-20 01:59:28 AM  
Appease the Teabaggers by putting in a couple of extra shelves filled with copies of the Bible and The Turner Diaries. Problem solved.
 
2012-06-20 02:35:34 AM  

TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: Wangiss: I would the same energy to raise funds to keep the library open, but that's just me.

The problem with closing libraries is that as more of them close, more TFers a word.


Because no internet?

Seriously how long has it been since you were in a Library?

We are in the middle of a massive expansion of our Library downtown. If I called it a glorified Homeless Shelter I would be doing it credit. The entire retrofit and expansion was spent on things to improve the appearance and social services. More free computers for homeless people, more bathrooms, an office for a homeless counselor, and one new book room. The numbers on how many books are actually borrowed is pathetically small.

In the digital age a Library should have two components....a pay to play special collections storage where academics and students can access hard copies of genuine historic value, and a kiosk on the sidewalk that dispenses e-readers for a $20 deposit and lets you wi-fi books from the library digital collection for 7 days at a time. Im guessing that people like me would grab an e-reader, that college students and historians would use the special collection, and that homeless people would find some other way to sponge off our tax dollars.

Oh and It would likely cost about half as much to operate on payroll reductions alone.

Did you know that the Feds are handing out free cell phones to poor people with like 250 minutes on them because....well stimulus im guessing, but because they claim you need 911 access in your pocket now or you are being discriminated against.

So take that money and make the e-reader a 3g model and give it a 911 button, a basic gps antennae, and a microphone so you can scream help voip. Now you are protecting the poor from emergencies AND educating them at the same time BUT you aren't helping them buy and sell drugs with a free phone!

Win Win!
 
2012-06-20 02:35:48 AM  

maxheck:


not everything is digitized yet.


Extremely this. I've picked up old reference books printed in the 1930s and 1940s that mentioned political scandals that led to laws being created. In most cases, I found mentions online of the laws -- but nothing of the historical scandal/incident that led to their creation. Grandma remembered all the hub bub about some of those incidents, but even Google Scholar was ignorant. And you can usually get some serious data there. Wikipedia does not contain the compendium of human knowledge. A lot of it is still available only through books, accessible through the library.
 
2012-06-20 02:41:43 AM  

Alleyoop: [cdn.geardiary.com image 224x350][2.bp.blogspot.com image 240x180][upload.wikimedia.org image 260x196]


[www.itechnews.net image 450x325]

Embrace evolution. Libraries just help non-computer owners surf for porn.


The funniest thing that ever happened at our library was when the computers first went in they set them up with the monitors visible from the front window. Everyone walking up the handicapped ramp from the bus stop was treated to 40 screens of porn. The Solution? Turn them to face the other way.

I would not sit in one of those chairs without a full hazmat suit.
 
2012-06-20 02:42:03 AM  
books are necessary in today's society for what reason again?

There are far more efficient ways to learn, be entertained, and expand your mind. I'm not saying reading is unnecessary, I am not saying research or learning is unecessary. Im not saying entertainment is unnecessary. Im not saying imagination is unnecessary. I'm saying BOOKS are unnecessary.

Maybe we dont want to get rid of libraries, but asking an obsolete portion of society to cut spending a little is not heavy handed. If you cant cut government spending on something that hardly gets used anymore without intellectuals throwing cows from the highest towers, where can you cut?

/ its called progress people. We dont draw pictographs on caves anymore for a reason.
// our library still maintains a card catalog. Despite the computers sitting RIGHT THERE doing the same function, they continue the expense of typing out cards to inventory their collection. Obsolescence is rustic and nostalgic only when some crazy moron in the sticks is running an antique shop.
 
2012-06-20 02:42:54 AM  

WordyGrrl: maxheck:


not everything is digitized yet.


Extremely this. I've picked up old reference books printed in the 1930s and 1940s that mentioned political scandals that led to laws being created. In most cases, I found mentions online of the laws -- but nothing of the historical scandal/incident that led to their creation. Grandma remembered all the hub bub about some of those incidents, but even Google Scholar was ignorant. And you can usually get some serious data there. Wikipedia does not contain the compendium of human knowledge. A lot of it is still available only through books, accessible through the library.


Just imagine how much faster they could digitize that stuff if they werent forced to spend nearly a third of their budget acting as a defacto homeless shelter?
 
2012-06-20 02:57:03 AM  

I sound fat: books are necessary in today's society for what reason again?


Because one day the power will go out. It may be a thousand years from now, or more, but then everything digital will cease to exist forever.
 
2012-06-20 03:16:39 AM  

Wangiss: TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: Wangiss: I would the same energy to raise funds to keep the library open, but that's just me.

The problem with closing libraries is that as more of them close, more TFers a word.

Huh?


He accidentally a word, duh!
 
2012-06-20 03:23:53 AM  
If it wasn't for a cool place to park kids during a hot summer, the libraries would be pretty much empty...which they are when its not summer.

Libraries, like paper newspapers, are for older Americans who won't be with us much longer.
 
2012-06-20 03:30:09 AM  

Weaver95: NewportBarGuy: Can we just burn the Teabaggers?

they're soggy and don't burn very well.


They make excellent fertilizer for the garden though.
 
2012-06-20 03:32:40 AM  

FirstNationalBastard: hubiestubert: Weaver95: tenpoundsofcheese:
Hard to imagine that Ben liked books so much when so much knowledge was available on the internet back then.

so you hate the concept of a public library?

It is a Commie invention. I mean, really, isn't the purpose of government to use public monies to help private businesses stay afloat and secure public lands and resources for their use? I mean, what kind of Commie would support environmentalism? Probably some racist Democrat, right?

[rlv.zcache.com image 400x400]

[lh4.googleusercontent.com image 466x640]

[www.thinkpint.com image 198x119]

Next thing you know, some idiot will pull up some quote from some Lib who thought that corporate influence on elections wasn't right...

[lh3.googleusercontent.com image 640x521]

Sorry, but Republicans before the 1960s really don't count as Republicans. They really are RINOs, because until the mid-20th century, it was the Democrats (Southern Democrats especially) that were generally the ass backward conservative party while the Republicans were more forward thinking, with guys like Teddy Roosevelt who would have had his Birf certifict questioned by today's Republicans.

Nixon was the first modern Republican president.

So, yeah, it's cute to throw up pictures of Teddy Roosevelt or Abraham Lincoln and mention they were Republicans, but they were about as close to a modern day Republican as Strom Thurmond would be to a Democrat


Even Nixon was somewhat progressive - he initiated the EPA, detente with the Soviets and made up with China.

It's a pity he was corrupt.
 
2012-06-20 04:01:07 AM  
thumbs.dreamstime.com

Go ahead teabaggers do it.

turn the entire planet off because YOU OBSCENE DEADBEAT TEA BAGGERS can't stand to pay for what you have, and cannot drag it down into the eternal nothingness when you finally shuffle off your purulent
Viagra-tainted hoverround-supported cancer-addled blubber-sphincters

you think you can just blithely rip everyone else off in your OH SO ENTITLED way, in the vile name of your festering sh*tgod Mammon and cheat your way through life, and everyone else is forced to pay for YOUR unearned privileges.

you filthy welfare queens
 
2012-06-20 04:24:25 AM  

FirstNationalBastard: Nixon was the first modern Republican president.


Well, except for that forming the EPA thing, and minimum wage stuff, affirmative action, equal rights and civil rights legislation, cooling off the Cold War, opening ties with China, etc.

By today's standards, Even Reagan was a 'Soshlust Libtard'. I love busting out Reagan quotes with no attribution, or simply as a "presidential quote" and having them assumed to be Obama's and assaulted as unamerican Marxist/Maoist lib stuff.

/Which to be fair, Reagan was slightly to the left of Obama on many positions
 
2012-06-20 04:28:12 AM  

Kittypie070: you filthy welfare queens


You might have meant that as a troll, but its sadly true. A simple majority of Tea Party people are actually on some form of public assistance, and usually on several, usually to the tune of an average of over $500k to $700k -PER PERSON- (estimates vary by study) over a lifetime.

/Bootstrappy my ass
 
2012-06-20 04:54:05 AM  

hubiestubert: FirstNationalBastard: So, yeah, it's cute to throw up pictures of Teddy Roosevelt or Abraham Lincoln and mention they were Republicans, but they were about as close to a modern day Republican as Strom Thurmond would be to a Democrat

Actually, what it does is illustrate the disconnect with the rhetoric of the modern party, while trying to call into question the intention of the Founders and the Republican legacy, and use the flag as a sort of totem to shield them from criticism by trying to frame issues in terms of patriotism.

That is the issue. The constant whine of Socialism, while trying to tear down the foundations of our republic is very much an issue. Illustrating that is necessary. Especially when trying to invoke the Founders and elder statesmen who would look upon their efforts with unbridled horror...


Didn't read.the rest if the thread but did the subby or anyone else actually find the facts of this case? This wasn't a 0.7% tax hike, it was a 0.7 mill rate hike which is a whole lot more than .7%.

But then you play on the idiocy of the American voter and outrage happens.
 
2012-06-20 04:59:52 AM  

algrant33: Nana's Vibrator: The linked "article" and the site are, well, done by a 14 year old and have the quality you'd expect from that.
It can't really be true, though, right? The book burning thing is a figure of speech, right? The tax increase is opposed by righty right voters, but there's no actual burning. Right? And if there were, it's not widely encouraged by a large faction of the Tea Party, right?
I don't want to look these things up. Don't make me.

Are you just farking with us or are you really that dense? Just watch the farking video, it explains it incredibly clearly. Like, INCREDIBLY clearly. To an infantile level of clearness.


So did the video mention it was actually an 11% tax increase and not 0.7% as subby and video implies?

False outrage, it's what rallies the moronic masses.
 
2012-06-20 05:06:14 AM  
I'm with the Tea Party on this one....if they need money to stay open, do a fundraiser, do a bake sale, get the word out.

If they want a tax hike, to keep a public library open, then Tea Party can fight it. Has nothing to do with burning books or education to be honest - public libraries are full of crap and pop novels. I know. I could not find any local city public library to do research in...they were all filled with romance novels and children's books.

I had to go to UCLA's Powell library basement just to get some usable reference materials.
 
2012-06-20 07:01:12 AM  
Excuse me, why should there be a tax INCREASE during a theoretically deflationary depression, when they were able to run the library for .7% less in the past?
 
2012-06-20 07:22:50 AM  

intelligent comment below: You just admitted to trolling. Isn't that against Fark rules?


You'll get over it.
 
2012-06-20 07:58:40 AM  

Elzar: First off, not a tea-partier...

However I pay taxes for my cities' library and yet because I live less then 1/4mi outside of the city limits, I must pay $80 per year for a membership (on top of the % paid every year in property tax). Its bullshiat like this + the fact that libraries are becoming less and less relevant in the modern information age that I wouldn't feel bad about more of these libraries going out of business.


If you live outside the city limits, why are you paying city taxes? I think you are mistaken about your taxes funding the library.
 
2012-06-20 08:04:42 AM  

untaken_name: Weaver95: tenpoundsofcheese:
Hard to imagine that Ben liked books so much when so much knowledge was available on the internet back then.

so you hate the concept of a public library?

Isn't it kind of outdated? I mean, having to actually go to a physical location to get information? Funk dat.


Vast amounts of data are not digitizedt. If you want historical versions of certain events they are not available on the net. The library is where you house history.
 
2012-06-20 08:09:43 AM  
Would be great if city public librarys houses much of anything other than basic encyclopedias, children's books, and trashy romance novels.

You have to go to the local universities for decent libraries for research.
 
2012-06-20 08:11:29 AM  

Ishkur: Tea Party's main argument, summed up:

I DON'T WANT TO PAY FOR THINGS I DON'T USE


Actually it's more like:

I DON'T WANT TO PAY FOR THINGS I THINK I DON'T BENEFIT FROM, BUT I'M SO IGNORANT I DON'T REALIZE I DO

could be shortened to:

I DON'T WANT TO PAY FOR THINGS
 
2012-06-20 08:25:59 AM  

archichris: WordyGrrl: maxheck:


not everything is digitized yet.


Extremely this. I've picked up old reference books printed in the 1930s and 1940s that mentioned political scandals that led to laws being created. In most cases, I found mentions online of the laws -- but nothing of the historical scandal/incident that led to their creation. Grandma remembered all the hub bub about some of those incidents, but even Google Scholar was ignorant. And you can usually get some serious data there. Wikipedia does not contain the compendium of human knowledge. A lot of it is still available only through books, accessible through the library.

Just imagine how much faster they could digitize that stuff if they werent forced to spend nearly a third of their budget acting as a defacto homeless shelter?


You understand that there is this thing called "copyright law", right? And that you can't legally digitize stuff you don't own, right?
 
2012-06-20 08:33:40 AM  
so now not wanting taxes raised = book burning... got it. God forbid they adjust spending like everyone else. Maybe if they put this energy into doing fundraiser instead of denegrating people they could raise the cash they need.
 
2012-06-20 08:36:11 AM  

Benjimin_Dover: Three Crooked Squirrels: Wangiss: tThree Crooked Squirrels: Wangiss: To be fair, s/he didn't specify.

S/he mentioned the head librarian reducing expenses by 0.7%. I'm guessing the head librarian only has input into the library budget.

A re you also guessing that money doesn't come from the city budget?

No. I'm not sure why you don't get my point. The library budget is a very small part of the total budget. If taxes on the total budget have to be raised 0.7% to cover the shortfall, the library can't shave 0.7% from its much smaller budget and cover the same shortfall. I don't know how to make myself any clearer. What is your point?

I would actually bet that all of the increased revenue taken in by the .7% increase would not find its way to only the library. Even if it was written into the law. Laws can be rewritten after the fact to spend the money elsewhere and then they would be in the same boat down the road. "We need to raise taxes again to pay for the library because we spent the money that we raised the last time to pay for the library to pay for those new electric car charging stations that we just had to build."

That's the crux of the problem almost every time. You give and give and give more and they never have to cut. Going up to the federal level, when was the last time ANY program was actually really cut? Ever?


QFT.
 
2012-06-20 08:40:18 AM  
Many librarians in Vermont make 100k+ a year, nobody ever goes to the library, they are tiny, and the librarians have huge pensions too. Libraries are a thing of the past and just another excuse to keep taxpayers in the dirt. It is not the same as when I was growing up in the 70's.
 
2012-06-20 08:40:32 AM  

CliChe Guevara: FirstNationalBastard: Nixon was the first modern Republican president.

Well, except for that forming the EPA thing, and minimum wage stuff, affirmative action, equal rights and civil rights legislation, cooling off the Cold War, opening ties with China, etc.

By today's standards, Even Reagan was a 'Soshlust Libtard'. I love busting out Reagan quotes with no attribution, or simply as a "presidential quote" and having them assumed to be Obama's and assaulted as unamerican Marxist/Maoist lib stuff.

/Which to be fair, Reagan was slightly to the left of Obama on many positions


Yea about that...
"Socialism only works in two places: Heaven where they don't need it and hell where they already have it." -- Ronald Reagan

"We don't have a trillion-dollar debt because we haven't taxed enough; we have a trillion-dollar debt because we spend too much" -- Ronald Reagan

"Government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem." -- Ronald Reagan
 
2012-06-20 09:05:18 AM  

Wangiss: TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: Wangiss: So I was confused by the missing apostrophe. Got it.

Go back and take one more look at what you originally typed. Speak it out loud. Slowly.

/spoiling the fun for everyone else, I know

Dammit, you could have been the new Gene Masseth.


i174.photobucket.com
 
2012-06-20 09:16:55 AM  

WordyGrrl: maxheck:


not everything is digitized yet.


Extremely this. I've picked up old reference books printed in the 1930s and 1940s that mentioned political scandals that led to laws being created. In most cases, I found mentions online of the laws -- but nothing of the historical scandal/incident that led to their creation. Grandma remembered all the hub bub about some of those incidents, but even Google Scholar was ignorant. And you can usually get some serious data there. Wikipedia does not contain the compendium of human knowledge. A lot of it is still available only through books, accessible through the library.


I'll wager that the vast majority of written works are not digitised, that a huge proportion won't be for a very long time, and that no small amount never will be. I think a lot of people have no concept of how much stuff we're talking about, just like most of them have no concept of how big space is. (I've believed for years that the reason people think space aliens are likely is that they imagine the Earth as a small town in a big country -- instead of more realistically as a grain of dust in an entire galaxy.) I figure most people imagine there are so many 'million' 'books' out there, and that's their working concept of what's in a 'library'. It's grossly distorted, of course, but that's what they believe, so they base all their feelings about libraries based on that. "Why don't they just scan all the books?" They have no idea how many books they're talking about, or what it would take to scan them all; never mind that it's extremely difficult to scan some old books. Or that scanned images are not the same thing as readable images. (Ever look at a municipal land record from a century ago? Good luck.)

What they're suggesting might well start to be possible within this century. But it would of course require, just for starters, a massive and aggressive investment in the original resources -- which is the opposite of what those same people are proposing here. "We should stop spending money on libraries and make everything digital instead" is so purely asinine it's hard to decide which end of that statement to curbstomp first.
 
2012-06-20 09:22:50 AM  

Sylvia_Bandersnatch: WordyGrrl: maxheck:


not everything is digitized yet.


Extremely this. I've picked up old reference books printed in the 1930s and 1940s that mentioned political scandals that led to laws being created. In most cases, I found mentions online of the laws -- but nothing of the historical scandal/incident that led to their creation. Grandma remembered all the hub bub about some of those incidents, but even Google Scholar was ignorant. And you can usually get some serious data there. Wikipedia does not contain the compendium of human knowledge. A lot of it is still available only through books, accessible through the library.

I'll wager that the vast majority of written works are not digitised, that a huge proportion won't be for a very long time, and that no small amount never will be. I think a lot of people have no concept of how much stuff we're talking about, just like most of them have no concept of how big space is. (I've believed for years that the reason people think space aliens are likely is that they imagine the Earth as a small town in a big country -- instead of more realistically as a grain of dust in an entire galaxy.) I figure most people imagine there are so many 'million' 'books' out there, and that's their working concept of what's in a 'library'. It's grossly distorted, of course, but that's what they believe, so they base all their feelings about libraries based on that. "Why don't they just scan all the books?" They have no idea how many books they're talking about, or what it would take to scan them all; never mind that it's extremely difficult to scan some old books. Or that scanned images are not the same thing as readable images. (Ever look at a municipal land record from a century ago? Good luck.)

What they're suggesting might well start to be possible within this century. But it would of course require, just for starters, a massive and aggressive investment in the original resources -- which is the opposite of what those same people are ...


If you want to read an old book that serves no purpose but for entertainment, buy it from Amazon.
 
2012-06-20 09:23:09 AM  

Nana's Vibrator: The linked "article" and the site are, well, done by a 14 year old and have the quality you'd expect from that.
It can't really be true, though, right? The book burning thing is a figure of speech, right? The tax increase is opposed by righty right voters, but there's no actual burning. Right? And if there were, it's not widely encouraged by a large faction of the Tea Party, right?
I don't want to look these things up. Don't make me.


Yes.
 
2012-06-20 09:25:06 AM  

rugman11: archichris: WordyGrrl: maxheck:


not everything is digitized yet.


Extremely this. I've picked up old reference books printed in the 1930s and 1940s that mentioned political scandals that led to laws being created. In most cases, I found mentions online of the laws -- but nothing of the historical scandal/incident that led to their creation. Grandma remembered all the hub bub about some of those incidents, but even Google Scholar was ignorant. And you can usually get some serious data there. Wikipedia does not contain the compendium of human knowledge. A lot of it is still available only through books, accessible through the library.

Just imagine how much faster they could digitize that stuff if they werent forced to spend nearly a third of their budget acting as a defacto homeless shelter?

You understand that there is this thing called "copyright law", right? And that you can't legally digitize stuff you don't own, right?


ZOMG your right! The Kindle, Nook, iPad are really in trouble then right?

You also probably realize that the books and materials in special collections in libraries across the country are for the most part, old, out of print, out of copyright, of historical significance, and fragile?

Perfect for Digital archiving. We have an extensive program at our library doing just that. Hasn't been sued yet.
 
2012-06-20 09:31:17 AM  

CliChe Guevara: FirstNationalBastard: Nixon was the first modern Republican president.

Well, except for that forming the EPA thing, and minimum wage stuff, affirmative action, equal rights and civil rights legislation, cooling off the Cold War, opening ties with China, etc.

By today's standards, Even Reagan was a 'Soshlust Libtard'. I love busting out Reagan quotes with no attribution, or simply as a "presidential quote" and having them assumed to be Obama's and assaulted as unamerican Marxist/Maoist lib stuff.

/Which to be fair, Reagan was slightly to the left of Obama on many positions


It cracks me up that Reagan himself would fail at least three points of the so-called 'Reagan Test.' I'm old enough to remember Reagan personally. Hell, I even voted for him. I liked the guy, really. (Even though I despised many of the weasels he surrounded himself with.) But the real Reagan would disgusted by the people invoking his name today. I agree with neocons and Teabaggers on one thing: I wish we could bring him back. So he could tell them himself.
 
2012-06-20 09:31:39 AM  

Thunderpipes: Sylvia_Bandersnatch: WordyGrrl: maxheck:


not everything is digitized yet.


Extremely this. I've picked up old reference books printed in the 1930s and 1940s that mentioned political scandals that led to laws being created. In most cases, I found mentions online of the laws -- but nothing of the historical scandal/incident that led to their creation. Grandma remembered all the hub bub about some of those incidents, but even Google Scholar was ignorant. And you can usually get some serious data there. Wikipedia does not contain the compendium of human knowledge. A lot of it is still available only through books, accessible through the library.

I'll wager that the vast majority of written works are not digitised, that a huge proportion won't be for a very long time, and that no small amount never will be. I think a lot of people have no concept of how much stuff we're talking about, just like most of them have no concept of how big space is. (I've believed for years that the reason people think space aliens are likely is that they imagine the Earth as a small town in a big country -- instead of more realistically as a grain of dust in an entire galaxy.) I figure most people imagine there are so many 'million' 'books' out there, and that's their working concept of what's in a 'library'. It's grossly distorted, of course, but that's what they believe, so they base all their feelings about libraries based on that. "Why don't they just scan all the books?" They have no idea how many books they're talking about, or what it would take to scan them all; never mind that it's extremely difficult to scan some old books. Or that scanned images are not the same thing as readable images. (Ever look at a municipal land record from a century ago? Good luck.)

What they're suggesting might well start to be possible within this century. But it would of course require, just for starters, a massive and aggressive investment in the original resources -- which is the opposite of what t ...


Yeah, they are missing the point. Anything currently in printing will have a digital version at some level of the publishers operation. If they want to cut a deal to make that available in a library, that is up to them. Digitizing, and the expense involved are almost always under the authority of the special collections director and that person has the triage authority to preserve the collection as they deem most efficient. We started with Photos, as they were the easiest to process and most in danger of loss over time.

When old books are processed, they are not discarded obviously. The Digital version is made available to people across the country and the original is retained in case someone has a defined need to see it.

Take a lesson from the Library of Alexandria legend, make a copy and put it in the ether.
 
2012-06-20 09:36:34 AM  

manimal2878: Elzar: First off, not a tea-partier...

However I pay taxes for my cities' library and yet because I live less then 1/4mi outside of the city limits, I must pay $80 per year for a membership (on top of the % paid every year in property tax). Its bullshiat like this + the fact that libraries are becoming less and less relevant in the modern information age that I wouldn't feel bad about more of these libraries going out of business.

If you live outside the city limits, why are you paying city taxes? I think you are mistaken about your taxes funding the library.


It's not uncommon in much of the country for cities that our county seats to charge fees to non-city residents in the same county, as a way to defray some city costs. There's a rational argument, from the city's perspective, that any county resident may use the city library that they provide, so it's reasonable to charge all county residents something in order to maintain it.

For example, it's very common for non-city residents to pay a fire department fee to cities that run their counties, because they city, as county seat, provides a firefighting service for everyone in the county, not just city residents.
 
2012-06-20 09:42:18 AM  

Sylvia_Bandersnatch: cities that our county seats


Holy crap, that's hugely embarrassing. Obviously I meant "are". And I need more coffee on mornings like this. (I don't tolerate heat and humidity well -- my thinker starts throwing flayrods off the tredle.)
 
2012-06-20 09:43:38 AM  

Thunderpipes: Many librarians in Vermont make 100k+ a year, nobody ever goes to the library, they are tiny, and the librarians have huge pensions too. Libraries are a thing of the past and just another excuse to keep taxpayers in the dirt. It is not the same as when I was growing up in the 70's.


The only part of your post that is even remotely close to the truth was when you said, "It is not the same as when I was growing up in the 70s."

Don't you have a lawn to protect?
 
2012-06-20 09:50:22 AM  

manimal2878: untaken_name: Weaver95: tenpoundsofcheese:
Hard to imagine that Ben liked books so much when so much knowledge was available on the internet back then.

so you hate the concept of a public library?

Isn't it kind of outdated? I mean, having to actually go to a physical location to get information? Funk dat.

Vast amounts of data are not digitizedt. If you want historical versions of certain events they are not available on the net. The library is where you house history.


And..

"A generation which ignores history has no past -- and no future." - Robert Heinlein

In a sadly ironic way, I think that's part of what's going on here. People unfamiliar with libraries see comparatively little value in them.. because they don't understand what they are and are for, but they believe they do, based on their limited learning.
 
2012-06-20 09:53:01 AM  

Joe Blowme: so now not wanting taxes raised = book burning... got it. God forbid they adjust spending like everyone else. Maybe if they put this energy into doing fundraiser instead of denegrating people they could raise the cash they need.


If you spent time in a library, you might be able to spell big words.
 
2012-06-20 09:56:48 AM  

Joe Blowme: CliChe Guevara: FirstNationalBastard: Nixon was the first modern Republican president.

Well, except for that forming the EPA thing, and minimum wage stuff, affirmative action, equal rights and civil rights legislation, cooling off the Cold War, opening ties with China, etc.

By today's standards, Even Reagan was a 'Soshlust Libtard'. I love busting out Reagan quotes with no attribution, or simply as a "presidential quote" and having them assumed to be Obama's and assaulted as unamerican Marxist/Maoist lib stuff.

/Which to be fair, Reagan was slightly to the left of Obama on many positions

Yea about that...
"Socialism only works in two places: Heaven where they don't need it and hell where they already have it." -- Ronald Reagan

"We don't have a trillion-dollar debt because we haven't taxed enough; we have a trillion-dollar debt because we spend too much" -- Ronald Reagan

"Government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem." -- Ronald Reagan


The deeper reality is that Reagan was not an unusually smart or well educated man. He was in most ways quite typical of people of his class and generation. But he was a consummate performer and very impressive in person, and had superior people skills. In that respect he was a very natural leader who people who looked up to, and still do. I'm sure you can think of at least one other natural leader who people looked up to who didn't always have the best ideas.
 
Displayed 50 of 336 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report