The Online Education Database has put out a list of 119 “authoritative, invisible and comprehensive” resources under the rubric of “Research Beyond Google.” Aimed at college students in the U.S., the list nonetheless can be useful for anyone building a compendium of search tools and resource sites or as a guide for someone in the firm who’s ready to go beyond the basics.
Earlier this month Satistics Canada introduced “a new electronic format to the publication Focus on Culture.” This might be a handy resource for those who like to keep tabs on such things as “film and video production and distribution, movie theatres, TV viewing and radio listening, the performing arts, book and periodical publishing, heritage institutions, government and private sector funding of culture, culture trade and investment, the culture labour force, Canadians consumption of culture.”
My only . . . [more]
Apropos “Library 2.0 In Action” (Nov 24/06) and Simon F’s “Why is it that librarians are leagues ahead of lawyers in this sort of thing? Huh?”
With apologies to L. Carroll, because I’m inverting his question, we might as well ask: “why isn’t a raven like a writing desk?” The legal profession being, on the whole, what it is, the answers we’ll get will probably be even less useful, and nowhere near as humorous. (Those who’ve had the misfortune to have to read anything I’ve had published recently will probably have seen my tendency to quote . . . [more]
I’m delighted to announce that David Cheifetz has joined Slaw as an occasional contributor. David is a partner at Bennet Best Burns LLP practising “civil litigation primarily in areas that involve the interests of property and casualty insurers and institutional clients.” A lawyer for nearly thirty years, he has worked primarily in litigation but also boasts a stint in the Legal Division of the Research Branch of the Library of Parliament. David has written a text, Apportionment of Fault in Tort, as well as a number of articles for legal journals. And — pièce de résistance — “he was . . . [more]
From last week’s leet to Latin this week, the language of law’s tags and maxims. Wikipedia again does it right, having a fine set of articles on Latin from various angles. The full list of Latin phrases is a good place to start. From a bene placito“from one who has been pleased well” Or “at will”, “at one’s pleasure”. This phrase, and its Italian derivative beneplacito, are synonymous with the more common ad libitum (“at pleasure”). to vox populi“voice of the people”, with a hundred or so phrases in between, there’s plenty here to amuse and arm yourself for . . . [more]
Well, there you go, another outdated technology bites the dust. This article in Variety announced the death of VHS: “After a long illness, the groundbreaking home-entertainment format VHS has died of natural causes in the United States. The format was 30 years old”.
However, there is some relief – the same article happily points out that Toy’R’US will still carry “Barney” VHS cassettes. . . . [more]
Want to know what Library 2.0 is? Well, you soon may not be able to find that answer on Wikipedia. On Wednesday someone earmarked the Library 2.0 article to be considered for deletion, citing the phrase as a neologism unsubstantiated by secondary sources. Ironic, since we had a room of 50+ people here in Toronto talking last night about what Library 2.0 is and how they can adapt some of the technologies in their own libraries!
This was brought to my attention earlier this week; apparently one is able to buy scholarly articles on Amazon. When publishing to a journal, one should make sure that they are not giving up rights to your original work. To quote:
An investigation by The Times Higher has found that American Amazon has arrangements to sell academic articles via companies that secure the rights to the content of journals from thousands of publishers worldwide. …Amazon.com told The Times Higher: “We license content from various content aggregators, some of which secure rights to content from thousands of publishers.
On a . . . [more]
Check out the site on the collaborative book being written online by people with a connection to Wharton Business School, MIT Sloan School of Management, Pearson and Shared Insights:
. . . [more]
The central premise of We Are Smarter Than Me is that large groups of people (“We”) can, and should, take responsibility for traditional business functions that are currently performed by companies, industries and experts (“Me”)…
While they extol the power of communities, [recent books] were each written by only one person. We’re putting this paradox to the test by inviting hundreds of thousands of authors to contribute to this “network book”
I’ve only now noticed that with some searches Google invites me to “refine” the results and pick a class of pages. It seems to work for a travel destination (I tried with success New York, Toronto, and Vienna [thumbnail]) and for a medical matter (success with arthritis, gout[!], and diabetes [thumbnail]).
It doesn’t work, though, for law. I tried contract and tort and came up empty-handed, so to speak. Trickier to refine, I guess, and not nearly as popular as Paris or the common cold, even in a notoriously litigious society. . . . [more]