Field Marshall Bradley
Veteran
I disagree. I think your qualms or with TV Media.......Matter of fact, published media(books, newspapers, etc) is what exposes the lies that you see in corporate TV media(fox, cnn, etc.)
How do you feel about Libraries?
- Thread starter ADevilYouKhow
- Start date
I disagree. I think your qualms or with TV Media.......Matter of fact, published media(books, newspapers, etc) is what exposes the lies that you see in corporate TV media(fox, cnn, etc.)
nineteeneightysix
Banned
So are you stating that government cannot control libraries...? The internet is NOT that easy to control...Of course, the average person doesn't even know the first thing about the internet, but if people where put in a position where they needed to know the internet in and out, in order to survive, you will understand why the internet is not easy to control...
Case in point, WikiLeaks...How could that have been possible with physical books...? It would take years to spread that info using physical books, and by the time the info reaches the everyday man, the government would have twisted the stories so much, and the info would have been relegated to conspiracy theories...
But in matter of seconds, Assange was able to spread info to anybody with an internet connection and know how...
Another example, Eric Snowden and the NSA...Look how quickly he was able to break that story electronically...Books would take years, if they ever get the chance to see the light of day...
You talk about books and the American Revolution...Well, a recent example is Twitter and the Egyptian revolt, that sh+t took minutes to explode, not years of fighting...
We witnessed the power of sharing info electronically, first hand...And if you followed the story, you got the information uncut, with no treatment from the big wigs at the big media corporations...
The Boston bombers, we witnessed that story uncut, we heard the police scanners, we saw the security cameras, we saw cellphone footage from bystanders...Imagine we had to wait to read the physical books...hahahaha...Can you image how much info would have been omitted or altered...
Imagine JFK was assassinated the way he was, today...We would know exactly what happened, we may not know the motives, but the events, we would for sure know exactly what happened, who pulled the trigger, how many people pulled the triggers, and other details...
Books are archaic...
If paranoid delusions of government control is the only argument for books, then I am not convinced...
If you know the internet, you have access to anything that was EVER published online...Government CANNOT stop that, short of shutting down the internet...
And we know that will lead to civil war...Western governments don't want those kinds of problems right now...High risk low reward situation...
You;re incredibly dumb. WikiLeaks does not do everything electronically. Read up before you generalize and make up shyt.
http://wikileaks.org/Transcript-Meeting-Assange-Schmidt?nocache
govts are involved in the trickery too. the cia is all over twitter to push lies and they are the ones that need action to be carried out in minutes when dealing with the masses. that's why them arab countries just shut off their internets and put a whoopin on their ppl to get them back inline.
nineteeneightysix
Banned
And that's the beauty of it all...You get e-Books from academics and also from everyday people, so you get a nice mix of ideas...And if you really want to investigate further, you can do it with ease with a few cliques of your mouse...
Anybody can write and publish...Are you saying that people should not write and publish unless they have some kind of academic reputation...?
Of course, you are not saying that...
Like I have stated numerous times in this debate...Many reputable academics are publishing their work electronically WAY before a physical copy is available...
I gave the example of the Doctor in an emergency room...He can get up to date info about patient treatments from reputable medical databases in a few minutes, instead of waiting for years after a book is written and published, and by that time the information is already outdated...
I am enrolled at McMaster University, and we DON'T use textbooks...Why, because the info is already out dated...There is new research being published everyday, and even older research that is valuable, but has not yet found it's way into a textbook...
This the experience I am using for my arguments...I don't know what backgrounds some of you are from, but you seem stuck in an old paradigm...
nineteeneightysix
Banned
You are calling me dumb, and yet you are unknowingly proving me right, by directing me to an electronic source...hahahahaha...
Why didn't you write a book, publish it, so it can be catalogued in a library where I will never even have the opportunity to access it...
hahahahahahahaha...
Now, do you see why speed and convenience are essential for publication and access of info...?
Field Marshall Bradley
Veteran
Its not an "old" paradigm....Its actually the engine that brought you the technology you use today...You appear to be stretching the goal posts here because now you are championing the way that legit info is disseminated, as opposed to the original arguments of printed media being archaic.....That research you're raving about that you receive in minutes is peer reviewed and then published via hard media and given to you digitally as an alternative.
Because it's a transcript not a book
Who argued that the Internet wasn't a good tool. You're the one arguing that it should succeed bound books and replace them
nineteeneightysix
Banned
Again...More proof why the internet is a bigger threat than the slow and archaic method of one person writing a manuscript, to be edited, published, and printed for dissemination to the masses...
A process that can take years, and by the time you get the info, everything has changed...
i don't have a stance for or against digital or physical media. it's a case to case basis with me.
nineteeneightysix
Banned
1) It's an old paradigm...You don't even try to argue the opposite...It just doesn't make sense...
2) Technology is responsible for technology...Yes, books played their role, but now we have more innovative ways of sharing info, so books are played out...That's just progress...If we were having this discussion in 1996, I would VEHEMENTLY support libraries...But we are more advanced now...
3) I am not stretching the goal posts...The original argument is about the importance of libraries...Go back and read my previous posts, I gave examples of how LEGITIMATE info is being published online long before a physical copy is available...
Like I said, I am currently attending University, I have to write essays every other week, and all my sources are electronic, current and from legitimate academically recommended databases...Many of the most recent articles I cite, are not yet in physical print...
I have repeated this point NUMEROUS times throughout this discussion, but it's obvious that the point is so solid, it cannot be argued against, and that's why it's being ignored...
4) Research is electronically published, and then printed later...If you don't believe me, do your search for the most recent articles being printed...
It makes no sense to print the article (which takes considerably more time) and is limited in terms availability, when the article can be mad available to the masses electronically...
When researchers are doing systematic reviews, they search electronic databases, they don't go to the library and flip through every page of every relevant journal, just to find the articles that are relevant for their study...
Another reason why libraries as they are, are an out dated..Imagine going to the library to look through every single journal published in the past 5 years, just to find what you are looking...
Another advantage of electronic publication...Time saving...
This has been my experience...
Field Marshall Bradley
Veteran
You have no point though......My assertion about you being 21 or under was spot on I see, cause its obvious in the logic you're using....
2nd. You can state that the articles you're using for research aren't in print.....but you did not declare what subject you're researching, and lastly, the fact that you're using digital media(articles not in print), does not mean that you have superior researching material, as opposed to going to a library...
how is the cloud a farce?
Brown_Pride
All Star
how did all those books get into that library? Wasn't magic was it? No Someone ordered them based on most likely popularity or request or some other "method/algorithm" was used to select those books. Those books were then categorized via a system. When you want information on a particular subject you most likely go to a card catelog (probably digital) and look for that TYPE of book. You then are limited to what's in that library. Ultimately going online and researching is going to yield more results, Period. You may have to go to a library to find one of the books you found online but never the less all research starts off with a query into already done research and if you're ONLY RELYING ON GOOGLE to start that search then you're a fukin idiot to begin with.I studied info-sci during graduate school, so I understand both arguments of physical vs. digital. Info-sci essentially is blending with info-tech due to the advancements of the digital age, but folks still preach the importance of maintaining physical materials (i.e. books, media, etc.), even if on a smaller scale. Relying solely on tech to house and store info is WAY too risky and costly. Tech has advanced a lot over the years, but we're no where near being solely reliant on it, especially when there are folks who STILL don't have access, while hardware or Internet connections can stop in an instant.
As for relying on Google to get you info, I'mon that subject. You'll have to really dig through the results in order to get something of substance, especially if it isn't "popular". That's where places like Worldcat, OCLC, etc. come into play if you want extensive research (sometimes that's not enough...
). Step into a decent-sized university library and you'll see all sorts of people in there, some staying until closing time, even during dead periods of the semester...
Folks wanting that "Book of Eli", Skynet, and "1984" type of rachetness...
That being said there's nothing wrong with e-books. All the ploys and tricks used to suppress information in a library are still in play with ebooks. The information is what's important NOT the medium. Period.
Libraries will still be important because those writing the ebooks will want to get paid. Those who can't afford to pay for those ebooks will still need to check them. Why do we go to libraries now? So we don't have to buy the books. That'll be the same reason we'll go to libraries in the future, only i suspect that instead of getting a physical book, you'll get a time locked digital copy with read only rights to your book for say 2 weeks at which point the pdf file or whatever it may be will either lock or delete.
