Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #548880 > unrolled thread
| Started by | benj <none@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-01-28 17:31 -0500 |
| Last post | 2016-01-31 02:05 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 69 — 10 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Hey Odd! benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-28 17:31 -0500
Re: Hey Odd! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-28 16:35 -0600
Re: Hey Odd! benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-28 17:47 -0500
Re: Hey Odd! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-28 17:12 -0600
Re: Hey Odd! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-28 17:16 -0600
Re: Hey Odd! Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-28 16:14 -0800
Re: Hey Odd! benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-28 20:05 -0500
Re: Hey Odd! kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-01-29 12:34 -0800
Re: Hey Odd! Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 13:36 -0800
Re: Hey Odd! benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-28 19:55 -0500
Re: Hey Odd! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 07:45 -0600
Re: Hey Odd! benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 12:29 -0500
Re: Hey Odd! Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-01-29 17:47 +0000
Re: Hey Odd! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 12:19 -0600
Re: Hey Odd! Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-01-29 18:43 +0000
Re: Hey Odd! jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-01-29 19:17 +0000
Re: Hey Odd! Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-01-29 21:59 +0000
Re: Hey Odd! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 16:37 -0600
Re: Hey Odd! jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-01-29 22:40 +0000
Re: Hey Odd! Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-01-29 23:38 +0000
Re: Hey Odd! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-31 13:19 -0600
Re: Hey Odd! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 14:27 -0600
Re: Hey Odd! Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-01-29 22:11 +0000
Re: Hey Odd! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 16:44 -0600
Re: Hey Odd! benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-30 02:33 -0500
Re: Hey Odd! "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-01-30 22:53 -0800
Re: Hey Odd! Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-29 12:25 -0600
Re: Hey Odd! Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-01-29 18:38 +0000
Re: Hey Odd! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 14:23 -0600
Re: Hey Odd! Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-01-29 22:20 +0000
Re: Hey Odd! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 16:52 -0600
Re: Hey Odd! Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-01-29 23:54 +0000
Re: Hey Odd! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-30 12:29 -0600
Re: Hey Odd! Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-01-30 20:43 +0000
Re: Hey Odd! benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-31 00:07 -0500
Re: Hey Odd! Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-01-31 05:17 +0000
Re: Hey Odd! benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-31 01:39 -0500
Re: Hey Odd! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-31 13:25 -0600
Re: Hey Odd! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-30 12:29 -0600
Re: Hey Odd! Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-01-30 20:51 +0000
Re: Hey Odd! benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-31 00:16 -0500
Re: Hey Odd! Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-01-31 05:58 +0000
Re: Hey Odd! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-31 13:29 -0600
Re: Hey Odd! Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-01-30 21:08 +0000
Re: Hey Odd! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-31 13:33 -0600
Re: Hey Odd! Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-01-31 20:20 +0000
Re: Hey Odd! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-31 14:48 -0600
Re: Hey Odd! Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-01-31 21:37 +0000
Re: Hey Odd! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-31 16:00 -0600
Re: Hey Odd! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-31 16:02 -0600
Re: Hey Odd! The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-01 00:03 -0800
Re: Hey Odd! The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-01 00:36 -0800
Re: Hey Odd! The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-01 14:18 -0800
Re: Hey Odd! The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-01 16:16 -0800
Re: Hey Odd! HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 10:41 -0800
Re: Hey Odd! benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 14:22 -0500
Re: Hey Odd! Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-01-29 22:26 +0000
Re: Hey Odd! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 16:59 -0600
Re: Hey Odd! Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-01-29 23:45 +0000
Re: Hey Odd! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-31 13:19 -0600
Re: Hey Odd! Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-30 14:55 -0800
Re: Hey Odd! Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 10:55 -0800
Re: Hey Odd! benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 13:47 -0500
Re: Hey Odd! Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-01-29 22:36 +0000
Re: Hey Odd! benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-30 03:12 -0500
Re: Hey Odd! Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-01-30 18:49 +0000
Re: Hey Odd! benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-30 23:52 -0500
Re: Hey Odd! Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-01-31 05:47 +0000
Re: Hey Odd! benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-31 02:05 -0500
Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-31 13:19 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n8lmoh$195m$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #549266 |
On 1/29/2016 5:38 PM, Fabian Russell wrote: > On Fri, 29 Jan 2016 22:40:00 +0000, jimp wrote: > >> >> All year long? >> > > When I get the itch to read a certain volume I'd rather not > have to wait until the spring thaw. > Well, you know, there is always the option of not being homeless. Books don't HAVE to be read outside you know. There are things called windows. You stay warm and dry, and light still comes in! Amazing! I have to say, I DO find it fun that you have this image of yourself, happily reading an ebook in January at your desk with your device plugged in and consuming watts, but then shutting off the device and picking up a paper book means either reading outside in the snow or waiting until April. What you'll also find is that a paper book that you purchased fifteen years ago still runs on the same operating system you had back then, and you never have to pay for an upgrade. And what happens when you spill hot coffee on an ebook while you're reading it? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-29 14:27 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n8ghvb$467$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #549165 |
On 1/29/2016 12:43 PM, Fabian Russell wrote: > On Fri, 29 Jan 2016 12:19:30 -0600, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> >> Good for you. And you need power, a device, and software in order to >> access any of it. >> > > And what do you need to peruse your dead-tree books on your dead-tree > bookshelves? > > You need power, heating, and shelter from the elements. I would have shelter with either one. I would have heating with either one. And no, I don't need electrical power. I have a big ball in the sky that provides light for free. I can go camping for three months with my books. You? > > But if you want THOUSANDS of dead-tree books you need a $50 million > US dollar mansion in the Hollywood hills just to house the collection. I don't need a stored collection of thousands of dead tree books. Why would anybody need a stored collection of thousands of any kind of books? > > Good luck mustering that on your master woodworkers salary. > > Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! > > Be smart. Go digital. > I am being smart. I think you're being a bit of a nut aspiring to have the entire US Library of Congress in your personal possession. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-29 22:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n8go1u12h9j@news6.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #549206 |
On Fri, 29 Jan 2016 14:27:24 -0600, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > And no, I don't need electrical power. I have a big ball in the sky > that provides light for free. > How quaint. After dusk you can always light your candles. When your candles are gone you can always burn your books. Oh, wait ... > > I can go camping for three months with my books. You? > Sure. Ever hear of solar power? But what dufus would ever go wilderness camping for three whole months? > > I don't need a stored collection of thousands of dead tree books. Why > would anybody need a stored collection of thousands of any kind of books? > Only a backward primitive objects to books. Every educated man of the world craves his own substantial collection. Dozens of books on a wide variety of subjects can really add up to a sizable library that could tax the living space of the average home. E-books are the only sensible answer. But then there are those hollow philistines who desire only to impress others with their pseudo-erudition. These are the ones who acquire fancy dead-tree bookshelves and fill them with expensive leather-bound volumes that they will never read.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-29 16:44 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n8gq10$gsm$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #549238 |
On 1/29/2016 4:11 PM, Fabian Russell wrote: > On Fri, 29 Jan 2016 14:27:24 -0600, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> >> And no, I don't need electrical power. I have a big ball in the sky >> that provides light for free. >> > > How quaint. After dusk you can always light your candles. If necessary. Even in a power outage. Or a tent. You? > > When your candles are gone you can always burn your books. > > Oh, wait ... > >> >> I can go camping for three months with my books. You? >> > > Sure. Ever hear of solar power? > > But what dufus would ever go wilderness camping for three whole > months? Me. It was fabulous, and I'll do it again. Hikers who do the AT or the PCT usually take about five months to do it. > >> >> I don't need a stored collection of thousands of dead tree books. Why >> would anybody need a stored collection of thousands of any kind of books? >> > > Only a backward primitive objects to books. Every educated man of > the world craves his own substantial collection. I don't object to books. I object to craving for excessive possessions. Craving for more books in your personal possession than you could conceivably read in three lifetimes is objectionable to me. > > Dozens of books on a wide variety of subjects can really add up > to a sizable library that could tax the living space of the average > home. E-books are the only sensible answer. As I think I mentioned, I have room for about 300 books on one 12' by 10' wall in my home. That's more than dozens of books and it certainly doesn't tax my living room. > > But then there are those hollow philistines who desire only to > impress others with their pseudo-erudition. These are the ones > who acquire fancy dead-tree bookshelves and fill them with expensive > leather-bound volumes that they will never read. > Perhaps so. But I read every book I acquire. That's why I don't have thousands in my possession. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <none@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-30 02:33 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <6HZqy.226413$_r1.50602@fx24.iad> |
| In reply to | #549206 |
On 01/29/2016 03:27 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 1/29/2016 12:43 PM, Fabian Russell wrote:
>> On Fri, 29 Jan 2016 12:19:30 -0600, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Good for you. And you need power, a device, and software in order to
>>> access any of it.
>>>
>>
>> And what do you need to peruse your dead-tree books on your dead-tree
>> bookshelves?
>>
>> You need power, heating, and shelter from the elements.
>
> I would have shelter with either one. I would have heating with either
> one. And no, I don't need electrical power. I have a big ball in the sky
> that provides light for free.
>
> I can go camping for three months with my books. You?
>
>>
>> But if you want THOUSANDS of dead-tree books you need a $50 million
>> US dollar mansion in the Hollywood hills just to house the collection.
>
> I don't need a stored collection of thousands of dead tree books. Why
> would anybody need a stored collection of thousands of any kind of books?
>
>>
>> Good luck mustering that on your master woodworkers salary.
>>
>> Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!
>>
>> Be smart. Go digital.
>>
>
> I am being smart. I think you're being a bit of a nut aspiring to have
> the entire US Library of Congress in your personal possession.
Heh! You know, Boinker that 7 decades ago when you learned to read,
books were the thing, but there is a lot of electronics over the dam
since then. I presume you were too stoned in the 60s, 70s, and 80s that
you missed the developments.
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\::/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
~~ \/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-30 22:53 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <97e49eed-022e-44fc-82f3-830e7321f59e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #549152 |
On Friday, January 29, 2016 at 8:19:38 PM UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 1/29/2016 11:47 AM, Fabian Russell wrote: > > On Fri, 29 Jan 2016 07:45:32 -0600, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > >> > >> I *make* bookcases, Ben. I don't have to buy them. > >> > >> You are the one trying to decide whether your ten bucks should be spent > >> on particle board shelves or board-and-cinderblock shelves. > >> > > > > Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! > > > > Bookshelves? What kind of outmoded fsck-sh!t is a bookshelf? > > A very popular one. > > > > > I possess literally THOUSANDS of books. If I had to store them all > > on conventional shelves they would probably break the building > > foundation. Paper books are goddamned fscking HEAVY. > > > > No. My books are E-BOOKS. I can store thousands of volumes in > > a single desktop digital drive. > > Good for you. And you need power, a device, and software in order to > access any of it. > > > > > Get up to modern times. Dead-tree books are dead. Digital is > > the new, and only, medium for books. > > > > New, yes. Only, no. > If you need to be reminded, YOUR personal preferences are not to be > equated with the only sensible way. > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables =========================== Boddy (criminal Paul Draper) forgot to tell you that his books ARE STOLEN BOOKS as he stole my book as well !! Y.Porat =============================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-29 12:25 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n8garb$1mnl$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #549124 |
On 1/29/2016 11:47 AM, Fabian Russell wrote: > On Fri, 29 Jan 2016 07:45:32 -0600, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> >> I *make* bookcases, Ben. I don't have to buy them. >> >> You are the one trying to decide whether your ten bucks should be spent >> on particle board shelves or board-and-cinderblock shelves. >> > > Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! > > Bookshelves? What kind of outmoded fsck-sh!t is a bookshelf? > > I possess literally THOUSANDS of books. If I had to store them all > on conventional shelves they would probably break the building > foundation. Paper books are goddamned fscking HEAVY. > > No. My books are E-BOOKS. I can store thousands of volumes in > a single desktop digital drive. > > Get up to modern times. Dead-tree books are dead. Digital is > the new, and only, medium for books. > Oh yea? wait till your ereader crokes w all yer books, and they are gone. Or you lose that thumb drive, misplace the chip Or your hard drive goes south with all your eBooks CDs get scratched or katsup eats through the aluminum problem with ebook storage is the device failing, getting lost, misplaced, or taken. or someone formats it Average lifespan of home electronic storage media is 3 to 5 years. All hard drives fail. Formats change. Good old books on the shelf stay safe.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-29 18:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n8gbif02ckk@news6.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #549155 |
On Fri, 29 Jan 2016 12:25:35 -0600, Sergio wrote: > > Average lifespan of home electronic storage media is 3 to 5 years. > All hard drives fail. Formats change. > > Good old books on the shelf stay safe. > Where are you going to store thousands of dead-tree books? You would need a mansion or a palace to accommodate them. Is your home worth $50 million US dollars? I thought not. With e-books every man can literally possess the entire holding of the US Library of Congress or the European Biblioteche Nationale.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-29 14:23 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n8ghn8$3nm$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #549160 |
On 1/29/2016 12:38 PM, Fabian Russell wrote: > On Fri, 29 Jan 2016 12:25:35 -0600, Sergio wrote: > >> >> Average lifespan of home electronic storage media is 3 to 5 years. >> All hard drives fail. Formats change. >> >> Good old books on the shelf stay safe. >> > > Where are you going to store thousands of dead-tree books? Why do I need to store thousands? Do I need to keep each and every book that I have read after I have read them? I read about a book a week. In my adult lifetime, I may read 3000 books. Of these, I may choose to keep perhaps 10% of them, to refer to later. But most of them I will give away. So to store 300 books, I may need.... oh, 60 linear feet, say. A good bookshelf may need 5 book-carrying shelves, so now I need about 12 feet of wall space with ten foot ceilings. That's one wall in my admittedly modest three-bedroom house. Furthermore, as you might now, since I'm about 20% through my adult lifetime, 80% of those 3000 books I will eventually read haven't been bought yet, so I certainly don't need the room for them now. > > You would need a mansion or a palace to accommodate them. > > Is your home worth $50 million US dollars? I thought not. > > With e-books every man can literally possess the entire > holding of the US Library of Congress or the European > Biblioteche Nationale. > And what would one possibly gain by having the entire holdings of the Library of Congress in one's possession? It's like having a back yard shed with six centuries' worth of yard fertilizer. Are you nuts? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-29 22:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n8gojn22h9j@news6.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #549204 |
On Fri, 29 Jan 2016 14:23:05 -0600, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > Why do I need to store thousands? Do I need to keep each and every book > that I have read after I have read them? > You must have some kind of unnatural photographic memory. In scientific or technical books, there is so much information that I, and I'm sure most others as well, have to come back again and again to the same volumes. Most scientific books become permanent references that can be consulted whenever a need arises. It is also not at all unusual to have many favorites that can be reread many times over. > > I read about a book a week. > In a good week, I can read several books. But I, like most humans, cannot retain every scrap of information contained therein. Thus, I, like most humans, need to consult them again in the future. > > And what would one possibly gain by having the entire holdings of the > Library of Congress in one's possession? > Well, the gains are debatable, but with e-books the losses are none. With e-books it's just as easy to have the entire LOC as it is not to have it. So why not just have it?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-29 16:52 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n8gqfg$hch$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #549239 |
On 1/29/2016 4:20 PM, Fabian Russell wrote: > On Fri, 29 Jan 2016 14:23:05 -0600, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> >> Why do I need to store thousands? Do I need to keep each and every book >> that I have read after I have read them? >> > > You must have some kind of unnatural photographic memory. Well, I read them more slowly and carefully than you do. Maybe that helps. > > In scientific or technical books, there is so much information > that I, and I'm sure most others as well, have to come back again > and again to the same volumes. > > Most scientific books become permanent references that can be > consulted whenever a need arises. For you, maybe. As I said, I keep about 10%. Also, the books I read aren't solely technical or scientific books. I also read philosophy, history, biographies, good fiction and a variety of other books. I just finished a book about Russia. I don't need to keep all those books for reference. > > It is also not at all unusual to have many favorites that can > be reread many times over. Oh, but if you read books over and over, this prevents you from ever getting to other unread books in the US Library of Congress before you drop dead. > >> >> I read about a book a week. >> > > In a good week, I can read several books. If you can read several scientific or technical books from cover to cover in a week and have any understanding of what you read, then I applaud you. I confess that I can't get through, say, Wald's book on general relativity in two days. > > But I, like most humans, cannot retain every scrap of information > contained therein. Thus, I, like most humans, need to consult them > again in the future. > > >> >> And what would one possibly gain by having the entire holdings of the >> Library of Congress in one's possession? >> > > Well, the gains are debatable, but with e-books the losses are none. > > With e-books it's just as easy to have the entire LOC as it is not > to have it. So why not just have it? Because it's pointless, other than to rub hands and gleefully bwahaha about how extensive the collection is. Like someone who lives alone in a 5 bedroom house, or someone who owns nine cars. > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-29 23:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n8gu44230qa@news3.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #549253 |
On Fri, 29 Jan 2016 16:52:34 -0600, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > Because it's pointless, other than to rub hands and gleefully bwahaha > about how extensive the collection is. Like someone who lives alone in a > 5 bedroom house, or someone who owns nine cars. > No. I have thousands of e-books on history alone, which is perhaps my largest subject area. Admittedly, I will NEVER read all those books even if I live to be over a hundred years old. But reading all of them is not really the point. There are times when I have a desire for history, and when I do I have a virtual library at my fingertips to browse and find something interesting. This is the reason of it all. What would you have to do? You'd have to start searching external sources far from your immediate reach. That is pitiful. Get smart. Go digital. It's as easy to have the entire LOC as to not have it. So have it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-30 12:29 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n8ive1$1ic4$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #549271 |
On 1/29/2016 5:54 PM, Fabian Russell wrote: > But reading all of them is not really the point. There are times when I > have a desire for history, and when I do I have a virtual library at my > fingertips to browse and find something interesting. This is the reason > of it all. > > What would you have to do? You'd have to start searching external sources > far from your immediate reach. That is pitiful. I had a girlfriend who had 200 pairs of shoes. She had them because she adored shoes. She made noises like you, though, saying that having that many shoes meant that she could find any style, any color, at her whim and at her fingertips. If she wanted to wear a different pair every day for 7 months, she could. And no, she couldn't bear to dispose of a single pair, because what if she wanted to go back to wear them sometime later. Fabian, you are with ebooks what my girlfriend was with shoes. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-30 20:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n8j79l0vc3@news4.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #549408 |
On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 12:29:24 -0600, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > I had a girlfriend who had 200 pairs of shoes. She had them because she > adored shoes. > She had them because she lacked satisfaction in other area (if you know what I mean). Perhaps you were not doing your proper duty as a man (if you know what I mean). > > Fabian, you are with ebooks what my girlfriend was with shoes. > The analogy is, at the very best, superficial. The comparison is quite meaningless, and, because you adduce it, demonstrates a glaring absence of understanding on your part.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <none@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-31 00:07 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <jEgry.252147$pV5.31868@fx21.iad> |
| In reply to | #549422 |
On 01/30/2016 03:43 PM, Fabian Russell wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 12:29:24 -0600, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>
>>
>> I had a girlfriend who had 200 pairs of shoes. She had them because she
>> adored shoes.
>>
>
> She had them because she lacked satisfaction in other area (if you
> know what I mean).
>
> Perhaps you were not doing your proper duty as a man (if you know what
> I mean).
Say! This makes me wonder just WHAT kind of wooden "toys" that Boinker
is building? Splinters! Eeeeew!
>>
>> Fabian, you are with ebooks what my girlfriend was with shoes.
>>
>
> The analogy is, at the very best, superficial. The comparison
> is quite meaningless, and, because you adduce it, demonstrates
> a glaring absence of understanding on your part.
I knew two women EACH of which had more than 300 pairs of shoes and
worse than that had purses that matched all the shoes! Holy cow, I mean
I've got a lot of guitars but shoes? I just don't get the attraction?
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\::/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
~~ \/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-31 05:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n8k5cj01mee@news3.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #549477 |
On Sun, 31 Jan 2016 00:07:26 -0500, benj wrote: > > I knew two women EACH of which had more than 300 pairs of shoes and > worse than that had purses that matched all the shoes! Holy cow, I mean > I've got a lot of guitars but shoes? I just don't get the attraction? > The reason lies in neuroanatomy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cortical_homunculus Now, although this topic may be fertile ground for making jokes, I am being perfectly serious. In the image from the link, note the very close association between the feet and the genitalia. The current neurological literature has many papers attesting to the behavioral expression of this anatomical association. Of course, Sigmund Freud and the psychoanalysts arrived at the same conclusion from a different direction.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <none@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-31 01:39 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <B_hry.252151$pV5.203150@fx21.iad> |
| In reply to | #549481 |
On 01/31/2016 12:17 AM, Fabian Russell wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Jan 2016 00:07:26 -0500, benj wrote:
>
>>
>> I knew two women EACH of which had more than 300 pairs of shoes and
>> worse than that had purses that matched all the shoes! Holy cow, I mean
>> I've got a lot of guitars but shoes? I just don't get the attraction?
>>
>
> The reason lies in neuroanatomy:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cortical_homunculus
>
> Now, although this topic may be fertile ground for making jokes,
> I am being perfectly serious.
>
> In the image from the link, note the very close association between
> the feet and the genitalia. The current neurological literature
> has many papers attesting to the behavioral expression of this
> anatomical association.
>
> Of course, Sigmund Freud and the psychoanalysts arrived at the same
> conclusion from a different direction.
Are you saying a female homunculus has bigger feet than a male one? I
don't think so. Say wait! Isn't there this rule about the size of a
guy's feet and his... Oh that's right... no jokes.
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\::/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
~~ \/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-31 13:25 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n8ln3s$195m$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #549422 |
On 1/30/2016 2:43 PM, Fabian Russell wrote: > On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 12:29:24 -0600, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> >> I had a girlfriend who had 200 pairs of shoes. She had them because she >> adored shoes. >> > > She had them because she lacked satisfaction in other area (if you > know what I mean). > > Perhaps you were not doing your proper duty as a man (if you know what > I mean). She had that collection before I met her. What is your book collection a compensation for? > >> >> Fabian, you are with ebooks what my girlfriend was with shoes. >> > > The analogy is, at the very best, superficial. The comparison > is quite meaningless, and, because you adduce it, demonstrates > a glaring absence of understanding on your part. > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-30 12:29 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n8iveb$1ic4$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #549271 |
On 1/29/2016 5:54 PM, Fabian Russell wrote: > No. > > I have thousands of e-books on history alone, which is perhaps my largest > subject area. Admittedly, I will NEVER read all those books even if I live > to be over a hundred years old. Then it is pointless for you to OWN them. > > But reading all of them is not really the point. There are times when I > have a desire for history, and when I do I have a virtual library at my > fingertips to browse and find something interesting. This is the reason > of it all. To have something to browse through, and which you wholly own in your possession, that you could never possibly consume? Just because you want to thumb through it and find something interesting? That's what STORES are for. You go to the store, they have much more than you would ever possibly use, you browse there for something that interests you, and then you walk away with that item. You don't have to carry the whole store home with you to do that. If you were looking for something to eat, would you want your pantry to be as extensive as a grocery supermarket, just so you could thumb through it to find something that appeals? > > What would you have to do? You'd have to start searching external sources > far from your immediate reach. That is pitiful. Well, on the contrary, I find the excessive consumption just to have a vast collection at your fingertips, even though you'll never ever use it all, is somewhat disgusting. It reeks of the rampant consumerism and immediate gratification that is the source of the stink in this country. Thanks for contributing to that odor. > > Get smart. Go digital. It's as easy to have the entire LOC as to not > have it. So have it. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-30 20:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n8j7o31vc3@news4.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #549409 |
On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 12:29:33 -0600, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > Then it is pointless for you to OWN them. > > That's what STORES are for. > Jeesh! You are a denizen of Usenet and you still speak of ownership and stores? Judas priest! The true beauty of digital information, including of course e-books, is that is can be obtained without cost. It's all there for the picking. One just has to know how -- and knowing how is not difficult. Now don't start moralizing like a sick capitalist because it will have no effect. How do think I have acquired thousands of e-books? Do you think I am the Prince of Siam? Please understand how things are done in the digital age. Then maybe one day you too will have thousands of e-books. > > Well, on the contrary, I find the excessive consumption just to have a > vast collection at your fingertips, even though you'll never ever use it > all, is somewhat disgusting. It reeks of the rampant consumerism and > immediate gratification that is the source of the stink in this country. > Thanks for contributing to that odor. > >> >> Get smart. Go digital. It's as easy to have the entire LOC as to not >> have it. So have it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web