Library porn!

Not. To this librarian it doesn't look like people can actually use it as a library, and that the architects didn't care.

Grump.

To this librarian it doesn't look like people can actually use it as a library

Why not?

I didn't know there was a projected 4 year lifespan for library books. Is that true in the US as well?

To this librarian it doesn't look like people can actually use it as a library, and that the architects didn't care.

Funny -- I was going to say it looks like it's just for people, not to maintain the books.

For high-circulation books (NYT Bestellers) that might make sense - they go out many, many times and eventually fall apart. But in an academic library they buy books for the long haul (a book circulating 3 times in 10 years can be a lot), and even in a public library some types of books circulate less, physically lasting longer and staying relevant in terms of content (less popular literature, much nonfiction.)

I didn't know there was a projected 4 year lifespan for library books. Is that true in the US as well?

Per my MiL, book lifespans are measured in loans. I think she said a paperback lasts about 25 loans. (We were talking about eBook pricing, and how some publishers sell their eBooks to libraries in packages of 25 loans per license. Which I thought was stupid, but she said it's very close to paperback pricing since those wear out after about 25 uses anyway.)

I think she said a paperback lasts about 25 loans.

Or one faculty member. The architects' answer that assumes all books have to be replaced in 4 years seem to show them greatly misunderstanding what was actually being said.

From those pictures, a lot of those shelves look very difficult if not impossible to browse (or even reach for a known book) or maintain, and I wonder what the inside of those stacks look/feel like, since we are only being showing the outside edges.

It might look cool, but pfft. I imagine being at the information desk trying to explain to someone where something is shelved.

I watched about 5-10 minutes of the debate towards the end before I had to give up because Romeny was making me rage-y. I did notice he kept smiling (smirking?) while Obama was speaking but it looked like he was grinding his teeth while he was doing it.

It was, imo, boring, and didn't discuss things I want to hear about. Obama was conmpetent but subdued...not his best day ever. Romney was bound to have a good day *sometime*, I don't like the man, but he's not a chimp.

Quantum measurements leave Schrödinger's cat alive

Thought-experiment cats rejoice!

Researchers had suggested it should be possible, in principle, to make measurements that are "gentle" enough not to destroy the superposition. The idea was to measure something less direct than whether the bit is a 1 or a 0 – the equivalent of looking at Schrödinger's cat through blurry glasses. This wouldn't allow you to gain a "strong" piece of information – whether the cat was alive or dead – but you might be able to detect other properties.

Now, R. Vijay of the University of California, Berkeley, and colleagues have managed to create a working equivalent of those blurry glasses. "We only partially open the box," says Vijay.

Politifact has a post up fact checking the debate last night. Short version: Both candidates basically full of shit.

[link]