[bksvol-discuss] Rise And Fall Of The 3rd Reich
- From: Guido Corona <guidoc@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 21:09:27 -0600
interesting you bring up The Rise And Fall. . . I am reading it right now
and just can't put it down. . . believe it or not I fall asleep every
night while reading it and have about 300 pages to go. Fab book but. . .
I have found at least one absolutely hilarious error. . . and I suspect it
was introduced unwittingly by Shirer or by the
"Late the same night the indefatigable Swede informed the British Foreign
Office of his talk with Goering, and the next morning he was invited to
confer again with Halifax. This time he persuaded the British Foreign
Secretary to write a letter to Goering, whom he described as the one
German who might prevent war. Couched in general terms, the letter was
brief and noncommittal. It merely reiterated Britain's desire to reach a
peaceful settlement and stressed the need "to have a few days" to achieve
it.*
Nevertheless it struck the fat Field Marshal as being of the "greatest
importance." Dahlerus had delivered it to him that evening (August 26), as
he was traveling in his special train to his Luftwaffe headquarters at
Oranienburg outside Berlin. The train was stopped at the next station, an
automobile was commandeered and the two men raced to the Chancellery,
where they arrived at midnight. The Chancellery was dark. Hitler had gone
to bed. But Goering insisted on arousing him."
I can only summize the sudden 'porn' to be unintended, particularly
considering the rabidly homophobic nature of the unlamented Nazi actors.
G.
Guido Dante Corona
IBM Research,
Human Ability & Accessibility Center, (HA&AC)
Austin Tx.
Phone: 512. 838. 9735.
Email: guidoc@xxxxxxxxxxx
Web: http://www.ibm.com/able
". . . Maybe it was only those who were most certain they were right who
were guaranteed to be wrong. And that maybe, just maybe, those who
questioned the most were in the end those who came closest to being wise."
[David Poyer, The Command]
"Gary Petraccaro" <garyp130@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: bksvol-discuss-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
01/13/2008 08:26 PM
Please respond to
bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
To
<bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
cc
Subject
[bksvol-discuss] Re: An alternative to validating fair quality
submissions
There's got to be some version of the super heavyweight class. For
instance, what would you give whoever did Rise and Fall of the 3rd Reich?
<grin>
----- Original Message -----
From: <talmage@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2008 11:22 AM
Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: An alternative to validating fair quality
submissions
> I'm a bit torn here regarding this topic. Remembering the days when I
> relied on RFB, The Library Of Congress, and my KRM model 400, I either
had
> to deal with a lengthy wait for the book to possibly become available,
or
> scan it with results that now wouldn't even be considered fair. Back
then
> if I wanted to read the book desperately enough, I would put up with the
> rotten scan. At the time it was my opinion that a poor scan was better
in
> most cases than no scan. My concern with axing fair scans across the
> board is that we may miss the opportunity to come across an author,
> subject, or unique book we may not have the chance to ever have
elsewhere.
> I think Bookshare has moved in the right direction by hiding the poorer
> quality scans from users by default, but still allowing those willing to
> take a chance on being disappointed to find the less than stellar scans.
> I hate to admit it, but I do usually avoid now-a-days, validating scans
> that have been rated fair. If I do validate one, I will almost always
> reject it if there are any missing pages. The other thing I won't do
with
> a fair book is put too much time into cleaning it up, and I'll make sure
> it is still rated fair when I resubmit it, in the hope that when we go
> back over the fair books in the collection, it will be replaced with a
> better quality scan.
> Regarding this topic however, I have a couple of suggestions that for
the
> most part wouldn't be too hard to implement.
> As many others have suggested, I would have the books scanned for
quality
> on their submission, rather than relying on the opinion of the
individual
> scanners to choose a quality rating.
> I would develop a multi tiered credit rating for submissions, as opposed
> to a straight $2.50 across the board, and on a separate note, I'd also
> base the amount of credit on the number of pages in the book. I don't
> think someone who submits a 25 page book should get the same credit as
> someone that does a 750 page book.
> I also think that Bookshare should track some statistics on user
> submissions, and after a user has reached a certain percentage of their
> books being rated as fair, the system should refuse to accept any
further
> fair scans from them. So in other words, if 75% of a user's scans are
> rated fair, the system wouldn't allow any further fair submissions from
> the user. This would of course rely on the earlier point of scanning
for
> quality at the time of submission, and it would require that a minimum
> number be submitted before it kicked in.
> I think Bookshare should also track the number of times each book has
been
> downloaded, and for popular books that are less than excellent, they
> should be pushed onto the wish list for a BSO scan request.
> Before anyone beats up on me with the staff time concern, the only time
> involved would be in developing the plan, and than a short amount for
the
> software engineers to do some coding to automate the whole process
> involved. While the multi tiered credit could be confusing, I'm not
> talking anything too involved. Maybe something like a base of $2.50 for
> an excellent scan, $2.00 for a good scan, and $1.00 for a fair scan. You
> could than multiply the rate by a percentage for volume, something like
> 1.0 for over 250 pages, .80 for 151 to 250, .70 for 101 to 150 etc. So
in
> the cases above with a fair book, (yes I chose the easiest one to
figure)
> the submitter would get $1.00, $.80, and $.70, respectively. Please
keep
> in mind the above are just examples to show what I mean, and the staff
> hopefully with some volunteer input would have to set a scale. As for
> being confusing, the volunteer can still go to their profile page at any
> time to find out what the actual credit they've accumulated is.
>
> Dave
> To unsubscribe from this list send a blank Email to
> bksvol-discuss-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> put the word 'unsubscribe' by itself in the subject line. To get a list
> of available commands, put the word 'help' by itself in the subject
line.
>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database:
> 269.19.2/1222 - Release Date: 1/13/2008 12:23 PM
>
>
To unsubscribe from this list send a blank Email to
bksvol-discuss-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
put the word 'unsubscribe' by itself in the subject line. To get a list
of available commands, put the word 'help' by itself in the subject line.
Other related posts:
