Archive for November, 2005

More megapacks!

Sunday, November 20th, 2005

It appears that TreeLine Films has found even more flicks that are either public domain or that it can license for next to nothing. I haven’t been to Overstock for many moons, but checking there just now, I see:

  • Classic Musicals (50 musicals), which I’m sure is new
  • Historic Classics (50 movies, all named, all history-related)
  • Gunslinger Classics

in addition to the ones I’ve seen before (all either 50 movies/TV movies, 100 TV episodes or cartoons, or 150 serial episodes, each on 12 double-sided double-density DVDs), e.g. War Classics, Hollywood Legends, Comedy Classics, Mystery Classics, Sci-Fi Classics, Western Classics, Martial Arts Classics…

Indeed, 16 of the 24 DVD box sets on the first of nine pages (ranked by “top sellers”) are TreeLine megapacks. (More than 16, but there are some duplications.)

They’ve also dropped the price to $19.98–and dropped the silly “$199.98” list price to a more plausible $29.99 on all the newer boxes.

I see a few of these (and one more, Dark Crimes) at Amazon, for $26.95. Amazon has a longer listing for the musicals (which I couldn’t pass up)–apparently it includes quite a few music shorts.

Oh, and TreeLine may now be Mill Pond. Whatever.

Google and public libraries: A metablog

Friday, November 18th, 2005

This post at the Official Google Blog comments on Google’s plan for citywide wireless broadband in Mountain View (where I live and work).

Here’s the great quote:

To this end, I am proud to be working with the City Council, the city librarian, the police department, numerous neighborhood associations, both of the school superintendents, and (of course) the bookmobile driver. And huge thanks in particular to Ellis Burns at the City of Mountain View.

Yes, Mountain View does have a bookmobile. (This city of 72,000 doesn’t have any branch libraries, and I suspect given the shape and nature of the city that’s sensible. The main library is heavily used, and got a great shout-out just this week from a Palo Alto writer holding it up as superior to Palo Alto’s libraries–a situation which, if true, comes about partly because Palo Alto has more branches than it can afford to run properly.)

Anyway: Look at the order. The city librarian comes right after the City Council, and the bookmobile driver gets special notice.

Anyone who thinks Google is out to replace public libraries really doesn’t understand Google very well. Not that I do, but this post is certainly an indicator of corporate intentions.

(A question for down the road: Will we be able to drop our recently-added DSL account in favor of free wi-fi? We’ll have to see. Given that we don’t get cell phone coverage within our house, I’m not too sanguine: “Citywide coverage” doesn’t necessarily mean high-bandwidth coverage in every physical location within the city. But it might…or, at the least, the presence of free wi-fi may help to convince SBC to keep the DSL prices low!)

SciFi Classics 50-movie Pack, Disc 6

Thursday, November 17th, 2005

Two of these count as “sci-fi” in B-movie forms. The other two caused me problems as a viewer, but very different problems.

The Lost Jungle, 1934, b&w, David Howard and Armand Schaefer (dir.), Clyde Beatty. 1:08

This is the “feature version” of a serial with the same name, which ran roughly four hours total. Maybe the four-hour version had a more coherent plot. The short version is mostly wild animal “training” and capture, with a pathetic jungle-rescue plot added. Here’s the problem: Clyde Beatty may have been the “good” animal trainer, as opposed to a vicious underling portrayed in the movie, but we’re still talking about removing proud predators from their native environments, “training” them with whips and other methods, and putting them on display. I’m no PETA person, but I am an HSUS member and I couldn’t watch the movie without some disdain and discomfort. Different times, I guess. Otherwise, weakly acted and an erratic plot. $0.

Mesa of Lost Women, 1953, b&w, Ron Ormand and Herbert Tevos (dir.), Jackie Coogan, Lyle Talbot (narration). 1:10 [1:09].

Mad scientist creating giant immortal women and stunted little men—oh, and giant spiders as a byproduct—within a remote Mexican mesa. Thrills! Chills! Really absurd plot and endless guitar strumming! Exotic dances! Portentous narration! A mess, but an amusing mess. Sometimes-damaged print. $0.50.

Assignment Outer Space, 1960, color, Antonio Margheriti (dir.), Rik Von Nutter, Gabriella Farinon, David Montresor. 1:13

A newsman gets assigned to a space station whose commander doesn’t really want him there, and of course there’s an Earth-threatening emergency almost immediately (a derelict space ship that emits a sun-temperature field surrounding it for several thousand miles is about to enter Earth orbit and destroy all life—we do like to launch ambitious projects, don’t we?). Classic B sci-fi and of course there’s a female crew member who almost immediately falls deeply in love with the reporter. Maybe one reason they had trouble with the spaceships is that the meters are obviously audio distortion meters (no attempt to obscure or replace the labels: RMS Wow doesn’t have much to do with navigating a spaceship). Decent production values, somewhat faded color, nothing great but watchable. $1.

Laser Mission, 1990, color, BJ Davis (dir.), Brandon Lee, Debi A. Monahan, Ernest Borgnine, rated R. 1:24.

How do you get a 15-year-old movie with major stars on a cheap 50-movie pack? This one has to be in copyright. Yes, it is that Brandon Lee, Bruce Lee’s son—and how many Ernest Borgnines do you know? Excellent color, no signs of print damage, at least full VHS quality and maybe a little better, good production values. So what’s the problem? It’s meretricious tripe: A story about a mercenary who takes great delight in slaughtering as many “enemies” as he can, occasionally with martial arts moves but mostly with rapid-fire weaponry. And he’s the hero. There’s a “science” twist: a diamond about the size of a golf ball (introduced at a luncheon with maybe two security guards), with which an aging scientist (Borgnine) can, after the rock’s stolen, be coerced into building a “super laser weapon that creates atomic explosions” or something of the sort. The villains appear to be ex-Nazis in South America. I think. Debi Monahan (a looker, of course) is supposed to be the scientist’s daughter—which certainly seems believable as she whips out her thigh-mounted pistol and outshoots Lee. I could only watch it by treating the violence as cartoon violence: The body count was in the hundreds, usually for no apparent reason. I can’t recommend this one even as high camp. $0.

And there it is: The end of the first half. Look for the whole thing in a future issue of Cites & Insights (I would say “the next issue,” but it’s always possible that space problems will force it forward.)

Now, back to the TV movies…

Google Book Search: a name, not an initiative

Thursday, November 17th, 2005

Here’s the post announcing the name change, and going to shows the name change: Google Print is now Google Book Search.

It’s not a new initiative. It’s a name change. In this case, I think it’s an enormously sensible name change–recognizing that the thrust of the project is discovery, not full-text access.

And since the December Cites & Insights, with a big Perspective on OCA and the Google Print Library Project and a smaller (and much more controversial) Perspective trying to put some of this stuff into context, is not out yet and won’t be until at least the weekend after Thanksgiving (U.S. Thanksgiving: the earliest issue date would be November 26), I have plenty of time to make appropriate changes.

Good for Google. Now, if they’d coordinate the public-domain portion of GLP with OCA…(which could happen any time, and about which I have zero insider knowledge)…

Update Saturday, November 19: I’m seeing several bloggers referring to Google Book Search as “Google Books.”

I think that’s unfortunate–that it repeats and even strengthens the misunderstandings engendered by “Google Print.”

Google’s pretty clear that the primary goal of Google Book Search is just that–providing new ways to locate books, and making millions of books part of the set of data searchable (but not always directly retrievable) via Google (just as Google Scholar doesn’t always retrieve the actual articles). While out-of-copyright books scanned as part of GLP may be fully readable on screen, a good case can be made that they’re not really ebooks, given that they can only be read on screen and while connected to Google, one page at a time, with no clear way to bookmark if you were (ahem) ambitious (/ahem) enough to want to read through a whole book that way.

Never being wrong!

Wednesday, November 16th, 2005

It must be wonderful to be a pundit–and never be wrong!

John Dvorak wrote a truly atrocious column in the July 18 PC Magazine, “Creative Commons Humbug.” It began with the question “Will someone explain to me the benefits of a trendy system developed by Professor Lawrence Lessig of Stanford?”

Fair enough–but Dvorak sure didn’t seem to be asking an open question. He proceeded to say, “This is one of the dumbest initiatives ever but forth by the tech community. I mean seriously dumb. Eye-rolling dumb…” “Creative Commons actually seems to be a dangerous system with almost zero benefits to the public, copyright holders, or those of us who would like a return to a shorter-length copyright law.” Later, he says that Creative Commons “is similar to a license”–much like his published rant is similar to a column. Later? “This is nonsense.”

He goes on and on…and ends, “Will this nonsense ever end?”

Well…someone called him on it, explained how difficult it is to voluntarily reduce your copyright rights (particularly without abandoning them altogether), and so on. And here I quote Donna Wentworth’s October 28 post at Copyfight:

So will Dvorak write another column admitting that he was wrong? Not so fast. Explains Dvorak:
“My column was never wrong, my column was questioning….I was saying ‘I don’t get it, will somebody explain it to me, please?’…Sometimes you’ve got to go public with your bafflement, which I do…”

Isn’t that wonderful? You can attack something outright, call it nosense, belittle it, and so on–and as long as you include at least one question somewhere–“What is this all about anyway?” should do as an all-purpose question–you never have to admit you’re wrong. You were “questioning.”

Right. Before, I was beginning to regard Dvorak as frequently nonsensical and getting tired. Now, I regard him as a hypocritical jerk, too full of himself and his bafflegab to even admit that he was flat-out wrong, damaging Creative Commons to an audience of more than a million people.

A writer first?

Saturday, November 12th, 2005

A week ago Friday, I had the privilege of speaking to a group of academic librarians in Southern California, as the lead speaker in a most-of-the-day set of presentations on publishing for librarians. This isn’t about my talk. It’s about what I picked up from some of the other speakers–specifically academic librarians who had significant publication track records.

One of them said flat-out that when people ask her what she does, she says she’s a writer. Then, after that, she’s a librarian (and other things). I believe one of the other speakers said something similar, either in their presentation or in informal discussion. It struck me even at the time that I’ve never identified myself as a writer first or primarily. It’s something I do on my own time; it’s not my life. Which may have something to do with the semi-random writing “career” I’ve had and failure to capitalize on possible opportunities (or, you might opine, failure to become a truly Significant Writer).

I’m also thinking about the “why I blog” comments–those I discussed in Life Trumps Blogging and some I’ve seen since. Some of them are based on the blogger’s sense of always or primarily being a writer. In the context of those statements, I commented that–although I hadn’t thought about it–I’ve always been pretty good at writing and “can’t imagine not writing for an extended period.”

Apparently my imagination is suffering memory loss.

Look at the record (some of it not on the record, to be sure), and combining speaking to audiences with writing as two forms of formal communication:

  • Throughout high school, I was active in the National Forensic League (debate, impromptu, extemporaneous speaking–never service-club speeches and never oral interpretation of other people’s words). I graduated from high school in 1962 (part of the American Graffiti class; George Lucas was a classmate). The next time I spoke to a group except on a few minor work occasions and as part of a two-person sketch was 1987, 25 years later. So much for public speaking as something I just do…
  • In the junior year of high school, a group of us (I’m not sure how I was involved, since I’ve never been social and was particularly an outcast in high school) were so disgusted with the high school newspaper that we founded an independent, typeset, ad-supported alternative, etc (I think), which lasted a few issues (after the school principal concluded that the school couldn’t shut it down and, since almost everyone involved was an Honors student, would be ill-advised to try).
  • The next year, that bunch basically took over the high school newspaper and turned it into a prize-winning publication. I was features editor and wrote a regular column. Through much of college, I edited and mostly wrote in-house papers for the co-op I lived in, probably up until 1966 or so. (Hey, it was a better way to fulfill the five-hours-per-week work requirement of the co-op than cleaning communal bathrooms, which I also did at least one semester.)
  • But after that: One article in 1976. A written version of the sketch in 1979. One minor publication each in 1980 and 1981; two publications in 1983 (one article, one minor piece). Then, in 1984, came “Common sense personal computing” (a single article that somehow turned into a 15-year series), MARC for Library Use (an “accidental book” that was the first of 14, to date), and–a year later–starting out as editor of LITA Newsletter

So, realistically, I didn’t write anything for “serious” publication between 1962 and 1976, nothing at all other than internal documents from 1966 to 1976, and no real “track record” between 1962 and 1984–22 years.

Late bloomer? Maybe. Or maybe I’m not really a dedicated, compulsive writer.

In fact, “I can’t imagine not writing for an extended period” is an untruth.

When people stop wanting to read Cites & Insights (i.e., when apparent readership drops below some number, perhaps 100), I’ll stop.

When people stop wanting to read “Walt at Random” (or when I run out of things to say), I’ll shut it down or let it die of disuse.

It’s possible that people have pretty much stopped wanting to hear me speak–and that turns out to be surprisingly OK.

And as for columns, books, and other outlets: They could continue for decades to come–or they could disappear in a year or two.

In other words, I’m a person who frequently writes and sometimes speaks. I’m also a person who loves to read and has about a 30-year backlog of books waiting to be read (at the library, to be sure), who loves music and doesn’t spend enough time with it, who enjoys nature, who occasionally loves to travel, who enjoys TV, and who–first and foremost–loves his wife and the time they spend together. If the writing went away, the rest would fill up the gap.

Shocking, but there it is.


Wednesday, November 9th, 2005

Just a semi-political post, possibly more meaningful to Californians than others.

The bad news: Better than $300 million was wasted on a wholly pointless special election ($50 million of that from the state budget; not $80 million, because lots of cities had elections anyway).

The good news: $7 million of that was the Governator’s money.

The bad news: Prop. 79, the consumer-oriented prescription discount plan, was defeated even worse than Prop. 78, the pharma-oriented stalking horse to undo Prop. 79.

The good news: Both of them were defeated soundly. Maybe prescription drug prices are out of control, but the initiative process is a lousy way to fix that–just as it’s a lousy way to do most things.

The really good news: Eight up, eight down. Every single proposition was defeated. Those that Ahnold was most heavily involved with were among the most soundly defeated–and his idea that the governor should directly control state spending went down big time.

I hear they’re thinking about a sequel to Howard the Duck, with a muscleman (who, after unseating a governor who spent too much time fundraising, managed to spend even more time fundraising) as star: Arnold the Lame Duck.

PS: I’m not entirely against electing actors as politicians. Clint Eastwood was apparently a pretty good mayor of Carmel, and Sheila Kuehl may be doing a great job as a state Senator (Zelda in the Many Loves of Dobie Gillis, if you have a long memory).

Update, Thursday, November 10: According to this morning’s paper, Arnold’s “people” now say that the election results don’t show that Californians don’t favor Arnold’s “reform” ideas–just that they didn’t like having a special election.


First, that raises the question of who shoved a special election down California’s throat. That would be one Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Second, that raises the question of just how much advertising, editorializing, or politicking involved “the election is a bad idea” once it was clear that Arnold wouldn’t back off on blowing $50-$80 million on it. Which basically comes down to Zero: Once the election was a fait accompli, attention turned to the issues.

Know who’s happy about this election? TV stations. They got to charge top price, since these weren’t candidate ads, and there were a lot of them…

Random notes

Saturday, November 5th, 2005

Quickies on a Saturday morning after a 48-hour absence from the net. (I was speaking at Cal State Northridge, opening the CARL-SEAL program “Hot off the press: Insider’s tips for successful publishing”–and thoroughly enjoyed it.)

  • At some point during the day (probably during my scattershot opening speech), I noted that, in my opinion, a very high percentage of library-related blogs are worthwhile, and aggregation makes it plausible to keep up with lots of them. (I noted Sturgeon’s Law, “90% of everything is crud,” although I used the more common version ending in “rap” instead of “rud” and argued that while it’s probably true for blogs in general, I don’t think it holds for the biblioblogosphere. I also noted that I currently track 216 library blogs and anticipated that, after being away for 48 hours, I’d find 150 to 200 (I hope I said “to 200”) posts waiting for me, which would take half an hour to an hour to scan. The actual number is 238, and it may take a little longer. Still, 238 in two days is manageable.
  • Dorothea Salo thought there might be enough Google Print books to make an egosurf worthwhile. So, of course, I did just as she says: “(Oh, shut up. If you haven’t already done it, you’re going to as soon as you finish reading this post. Maybe sooner.)” I was astonished by the result (none of my books are there, but…), even after adding quotes around the name to eliminate all those mentions of people named Crawford who work for Walt Disney, etc. 26 books, most of which I’ve never heard of… No, I haven’t gone back to look at the snippets yet…
  • I was encountering a slow but annoying stream of spamments, all of them trapped by WordPress but requiring modification to report as spam. Today I find 44. So, reluctantly, I’ve had to add yet another word to the total blacklist, relating to a game I’ve even discussed in posts…

Hey, I said it was random.

Updates a day later:

It took me 55 minutes to go through the blogs–but that included the time to make comments on two of them and the time to scan LISNews as well. I think I found 15 posts that were “keepers”–ones I’d print out for possible reflection later. But quite a few others were informative, entertaining, or both.

Some clarification on “26” above. I checked a little more. Most of those–at least two-thirds–really only include me as a co-author; they comment on or include citations for Future Libraries: Dreams, Madness and Reality. Two are books that include chapters or contributions from me. That doesn’t really leave much, and that’s as I’d expect. Note, of course, that (as with Dorothea, I believe), these are all from the publisher-based Google Print program, not the Google Print Library Program.

Incompetent phishing?

Wednesday, November 2nd, 2005

Here’s a strange one, mixed in among the usual daily crapola of Important Security Messages from PayPal and a bunch of banks that I have no affiliation with…

(The ones that are clearly nonsense I delete before opening. Notes email client is helpful with the PayPal and others where I do have a relationship: When your cursor is over the link they want you to click on, the actual address shows on the bottom of the screen; saves having to show source…)

So here’s one “from PayPal” today, with two links, both supposedly secure links to units of PayPal.

The actual links are identical, and of course aren’t secure. But, instead of being some .kr or .ch or IP number or “pseudo-PayPal” (with “PayPal” coming after the domain name)…both links are to Nothing more.

I wonder just what the phishers hope to accomplish by getting me to look at Yahoo?

(Not that incompetence in computer fraud is anything new: After all, some of the biggest virus/worm problems arose because the crackers didn’t know what they were doing.)

Cites & Insights 5:13, a special issue, available

Tuesday, November 1st, 2005

A special Mid-Fall 2005 issue of Cites & Insights (5:13) is now available. (Well, Fall begins September 22 and ends December 20; November 1 is about as “mid” as you can get.)

This 20-page issue consists of two Perspectives:

  • Life Trumps Blogging (pp. 1-4), which is most definitely a pro-blogging essay, but recognizes priorities.
  • Library Futures, Media Futures (pp. 4-20), which combines my comments on Blake Carver’s LISNews “Libraries and Librarians In A Digital Future: Where Do We Fit?” essay; excerpts and comments from and on “Jeremy, Dan, Luke, and Walt,” a multiway e-conversation about the future (yes, the Perspective includes last names for everyone); and some notes about other voices on media and library futures.

Update November 2:
Jeremy Frumkin correctly points out that I miskeyed the URL for his blog, and would be happier if I pointed out the specific links to the two posts discussed in the second essay above.

The Digital Librarian is at (with an “a” in digital; Jeremy can spell, even if I can’t).

The two posts discussed are: 5 years? and Follow-up on 5 years.

Later today, the HTML version of the essay will be modified to add hotlinks for those two posts (and to correct the spelling of the blog’s address), and–although my standard policy is to not make myself look better by fixing errors once publication has occurred–I’ll probably correct the spelling in the PDF version as well.

My apologies for the error and vague citations.

I have a formatting question about this issue, specifically the monster essay. In order to make it fit, I used 9.5-on-11.5 point Berkeley Book for quoted excerpts instead of the 10-on-12 point that I usually use (body text is 11 on 13). Is this too small for comfortable readability? If people generally say it’s OK, I may leave it that way…

[Yes, you can pick up either Perspective as an HTML separate from the home page–but if you plan to print at all, please use the PDF. The second Perspective in HTML form requires more paper all by itself than the whole issue in PDF, and it’s nowhere near as readable, in my opinion. Hey, I paid good money for Berkeley Book…]

Predicted arrival date for what should be a slightly more “normal” December issue: No earlier than November 17, no later than December 1. How’s that for precision?