7 ms·

I've personally used sites like this as a sort of protest to what universities and authors did to the textbook market. You used to be able to buy used physical

by tyingq 4y ago

I've personally used sites like this as a sort of protest to what universities and authors did to the textbook market. You used to be able to buy used physical textbooks for classes at reasonable prices. They took advantage of the shift to digital by forcing arbitrary changes in edition numbers, solely to sell more books, or by requiring obscure, low-volume books, often written by the professor leading the class. With prices often exceeding $100.

musicale 4y ago
Used textbooks have been cleverly neutralized by the technique of bundling new copies with single-use codes for required online courseware. Adopting and requiring such courseware is somewhat abusive to students, but instructors are probably trying to save their own time and avoid reinventing the wheel. Personally I'd be happier if the textbooks and courseware access were sold separately.
psychphysic 4y ago
It would have been a godsend when I was still academic. This and sci-hub. The way they eviscerated the service makes clear that in general we need more robust web services. Tor is not ideal for this, onions are excellent and fill their niche really well. But we need something simpler here.
- boxed 4y ago
  What is needed is a strong government for the people, by the people. Without that, it really doesn't matter what tech you can cobble together.
  - vegetablepotpie 4y ago
    That doesn’t happen because most people can’t or won’t participate in government. This is because many government meetings are held during the day, during working hours, usually in places far from the individuals affected. The people who do show up are independently wealthy, retirees, and people being paid to represent an organization. Representitive government doesn’t, and cannot represent the people.
    - somenameforme 4y ago
      The founding vision of the US was one where the further away government was from the people, the less impact it would have on their lives. The Federal government was to have an extremely limited role in society, largely tasked with things such as international relations. Your day to day would primarily be affect by your state, and ideally on downward with a further delegation of responsibilities getting closer and closer to you. This also helps curtail corruption. It is ostensibly easier to coerce/bribe/etc a state than a nation, but you have to do this for every single state and then try to keep them all under your thumb. A federal government may ostensibly be harder to corrupt, but once corrupted they can affect your whims on a national level and be relatively easier to maintain control of. This decentralization of power seems to be the easiest way to have a functioning political system. It's always the same decision. Centralization paired with selflessness, benevolence, and competence will trend towards utopia. Centralization paired with selfishness, greed, or incompetence will trend towards dystopia. Decentralization will always just trend towards mediocrity as a mish mash of the averages of society.
      - AlgorithmicTime 4y ago
        It's almost as if the framers of the Constitution knew what they were doing when they created a decentralized federalized system and we've screwed it up pretty badly by centralizing power in the Federal Government.
      - starkd 4y ago
        If given a choice, I think I would opt for the "decentralization with a mishmash of the averages of society" over a dystopia. The "centralization with selflessness, benevolence, and competence" path toward utopia seems like wishful thinking to me. You can never legislate morality, and without a non-secular religion as a guide, a default moral people is not a reasonable expectation.
      - whoknew1122 4y ago
        The founders were also deathly afraid of a standing army. This is why a defense authorization bill is passed every two years. People might debate how much money should be put toward defense spending, but few people would argue that we should dissolve the military and call up citizens only when conflict happens. They also explicitly dismissed the idea of one person, one vote. And this all ignores the fact that there wasn't a singular, cohesive founding vision. Alexander Hamilton, for example, argued for a strong federal government. With all that said, we shouldn't be hamstrung by what a deeply flawed group of people decided in the late 1700s.
  - WanderPanda 4y ago
    No we need a weak government such that it doesn‘t matter if it is for or against the people
    - sigzero 4y ago
      There is no such government or governmental system that would actually work like that.
    - boxed 4y ago
      And how would you enforce that over time? Perhaps... with a strong government? :P
      - GauntletWizard 4y ago
        No, with accountability of government officials if they err - What would today be dismissed as "Attacks on our nation's capitol"
        boxed 4y ago
        What is this "accountability" you speak of? How exactly does it work? I hope you don't think "accountability" means some hill billies storming some offices and then going home having accomplished absolutely nothing, except in some cases going to jail.
  - CWuestefeld 4y ago
    We're discussing an instance of regulatory capture. Granting the government more powers - that are available for special interests to capture - ends up digging an even deeper hole.
  - rbanffy 4y ago
    > it really doesn't matter what tech you can cobble together. We need to be careful with that - it's one thing to make tools that help circumvent harmful behaviors, such as censorship and privacy violations, but rendering authorities unable to enforce laws (or forcing them to partially enforce them, based on who has and who hasn't technology protecting them) is not a desirable outcome.
- synergy20 4y ago
  aren't tor and onion pairs,why one not ideal while another excellent? confused.
  - qwerty456127 4y ago
    Because some people go through TOR to browse regular non-onion web sites and their experience is not always pleasant.
    - bheadmaster 4y ago
      > Because some people go through TOR to browse regular non-onion web sites They still go through the onion circuit. I agree with the GP, distinction you're trying to make is unclear - Tor is a browser that uses onion circuits to access the web, including onion sites. Without onion, Tor is just another flavor of Firefox.
      - qwerty456127 4y ago
        The distinction is simple - slipping through an exit-node or staying within the Onion network. Doesn't this make sense? As far as I know I2P is better for the second kind of the job but apparently is not nearly as popular, sadly.
      - omniglottal 4y ago
        Tor is The Onion Router. It is precisely "the onion" you're referring to. It is not a browser. A browser or any other TCP-using software can route packets through the Tor network. Be careful when misinforming people like this.
        bheadmaster 4y ago
        Technically, yes, Tor is The Onion Router, but everyone seems to refer to the official Tor Browser as "Tor", and to the Tor software as "onion". > Be careful when misinforming people like this. Who died and made you the captain of the truth police?
- DoItToMe81 4y ago
  Eviscerated? The onion is indistinguishable from the clearnet site, with the exception that you need to log in. Disposable mail makes account creation trivial.
bombcar 4y ago
One professor would hand out detailed sheets covering the differences between editions for anyone who had older ones, allowing a large range to be used.
- II2II 4y ago
  Several of my professors did the same. Some went as far as saying the particular text book was not necessary, suggesting we can choose our own or recommending another. The important thing was the content of the course, with the source only being relevant for things like accuracy (which was rarely an issue for my field of study, at least for introductory texts which is what publishers tend to game). Just after I finished my studies things started becoming more difficult though, when additional instructional materials (graded tutorials, quizzes, and such) started going online.
anxiously 4y ago
I used to borrow a friends book and photo copy the entire book. It wasn’t ideal but it was often an order of magnitude cheaper than buying those crappy books.
jhbadger 4y ago
Oh, absurd prices for textbooks is not something that came from the digital shift. I had textbooks that were over $100 when I was an undergraduate. And that was in the late 1980s!
- tyingq 4y ago
  Right, but there was a used textbook market that usually worked for me.
- wlesieutre 4y ago
  But did it have a code for accessing online homework assignments that only worked once and made it useless to resell because next semester's students had to buy a new copy in order to submit homework? It's been a racket for a long time, but it's gotten much worse recently.
lupire 4y ago
How about boycotting colleges that are more focused on stealing your money than educating you?
- banannaise 4y ago
  Voting with your wallet loses to the tragedy of the commons.
runlevel1 4y ago
Isn't it mainly publishers who are responsible for that? I think authors get a pittance. I recall a professor getting something like $600 to write a chapter in a molecular pathology textbook back in 2008.
anonomousename 4y ago
Now, you need an access code to do your homework. It costs more than the textbook, and cannot be shared, rented, copied, or sold when you’re done with it. The reason it is so expensive is because it comes with a “optimized” etextbook to help you when you’re stuck on homework. The average I’d say is around $120 Predatory practices all around.

by tyingq 4y ago

musicale 4y ago

Used textbooks have been cleverly neutralized by the technique of bundling new copies with single-use codes for required online courseware. Adopting and requiring such courseware is somewhat abusive to students, but instructors are probably trying to save their own time and avoid reinventing the wheel. Personally I'd be happier if the textbooks and courseware access were sold separately.

psychphysic 4y ago

It would have been a godsend when I was still academic. This and sci-hub. The way they eviscerated the service makes clear that in general we need more robust web services. Tor is not ideal for this, onions are excellent and fill their niche really well. But we need something simpler here.

boxed 4y ago
What is needed is a strong government for the people, by the people. Without that, it really doesn't matter what tech you can cobble together.
- vegetablepotpie 4y ago
  That doesn’t happen because most people can’t or won’t participate in government. This is because many government meetings are held during the day, during working hours, usually in places far from the individuals affected. The people who do show up are independently wealthy, retirees, and people being paid to represent an organization. Representitive government doesn’t, and cannot represent the people.
  - somenameforme 4y ago
    The founding vision of the US was one where the further away government was from the people, the less impact it would have on their lives. The Federal government was to have an extremely limited role in society, largely tasked with things such as international relations. Your day to day would primarily be affect by your state, and ideally on downward with a further delegation of responsibilities getting closer and closer to you. This also helps curtail corruption. It is ostensibly easier to coerce/bribe/etc a state than a nation, but you have to do this for every single state and then try to keep them all under your thumb. A federal government may ostensibly be harder to corrupt, but once corrupted they can affect your whims on a national level and be relatively easier to maintain control of. This decentralization of power seems to be the easiest way to have a functioning political system. It's always the same decision. Centralization paired with selflessness, benevolence, and competence will trend towards utopia. Centralization paired with selfishness, greed, or incompetence will trend towards dystopia. Decentralization will always just trend towards mediocrity as a mish mash of the averages of society.
    - AlgorithmicTime 4y ago
      It's almost as if the framers of the Constitution knew what they were doing when they created a decentralized federalized system and we've screwed it up pretty badly by centralizing power in the Federal Government.
    - starkd 4y ago
      If given a choice, I think I would opt for the "decentralization with a mishmash of the averages of society" over a dystopia. The "centralization with selflessness, benevolence, and competence" path toward utopia seems like wishful thinking to me. You can never legislate morality, and without a non-secular religion as a guide, a default moral people is not a reasonable expectation.
    - whoknew1122 4y ago
      The founders were also deathly afraid of a standing army. This is why a defense authorization bill is passed every two years. People might debate how much money should be put toward defense spending, but few people would argue that we should dissolve the military and call up citizens only when conflict happens. They also explicitly dismissed the idea of one person, one vote. And this all ignores the fact that there wasn't a singular, cohesive founding vision. Alexander Hamilton, for example, argued for a strong federal government. With all that said, we shouldn't be hamstrung by what a deeply flawed group of people decided in the late 1700s.
- WanderPanda 4y ago
  No we need a weak government such that it doesn‘t matter if it is for or against the people
  - sigzero 4y ago
    There is no such government or governmental system that would actually work like that.
  - boxed 4y ago
    And how would you enforce that over time? Perhaps... with a strong government? :P
    - GauntletWizard 4y ago
      No, with accountability of government officials if they err - What would today be dismissed as "Attacks on our nation's capitol"
      - boxed 4y ago
        What is this "accountability" you speak of? How exactly does it work? I hope you don't think "accountability" means some hill billies storming some offices and then going home having accomplished absolutely nothing, except in some cases going to jail.
- CWuestefeld 4y ago
  We're discussing an instance of regulatory capture. Granting the government more powers - that are available for special interests to capture - ends up digging an even deeper hole.
- rbanffy 4y ago
  > it really doesn't matter what tech you can cobble together. We need to be careful with that - it's one thing to make tools that help circumvent harmful behaviors, such as censorship and privacy violations, but rendering authorities unable to enforce laws (or forcing them to partially enforce them, based on who has and who hasn't technology protecting them) is not a desirable outcome.
synergy20 4y ago
aren't tor and onion pairs,why one not ideal while another excellent? confused.
- qwerty456127 4y ago
  Because some people go through TOR to browse regular non-onion web sites and their experience is not always pleasant.
  - bheadmaster 4y ago
    > Because some people go through TOR to browse regular non-onion web sites They still go through the onion circuit. I agree with the GP, distinction you're trying to make is unclear - Tor is a browser that uses onion circuits to access the web, including onion sites. Without onion, Tor is just another flavor of Firefox.
    - qwerty456127 4y ago
      The distinction is simple - slipping through an exit-node or staying within the Onion network. Doesn't this make sense? As far as I know I2P is better for the second kind of the job but apparently is not nearly as popular, sadly.
    - omniglottal 4y ago
      Tor is The Onion Router. It is precisely "the onion" you're referring to. It is not a browser. A browser or any other TCP-using software can route packets through the Tor network. Be careful when misinforming people like this.
      - bheadmaster 4y ago
        Technically, yes, Tor is The Onion Router, but everyone seems to refer to the official Tor Browser as "Tor", and to the Tor software as "onion". > Be careful when misinforming people like this. Who died and made you the captain of the truth police?
DoItToMe81 4y ago
Eviscerated? The onion is indistinguishable from the clearnet site, with the exception that you need to log in. Disposable mail makes account creation trivial.

bombcar 4y ago

One professor would hand out detailed sheets covering the differences between editions for anyone who had older ones, allowing a large range to be used.

II2II 4y ago
Several of my professors did the same. Some went as far as saying the particular text book was not necessary, suggesting we can choose our own or recommending another. The important thing was the content of the course, with the source only being relevant for things like accuracy (which was rarely an issue for my field of study, at least for introductory texts which is what publishers tend to game). Just after I finished my studies things started becoming more difficult though, when additional instructional materials (graded tutorials, quizzes, and such) started going online.

anxiously 4y ago

I used to borrow a friends book and photo copy the entire book. It wasn’t ideal but it was often an order of magnitude cheaper than buying those crappy books.

jhbadger 4y ago

Oh, absurd prices for textbooks is not something that came from the digital shift. I had textbooks that were over $100 when I was an undergraduate. And that was in the late 1980s!

tyingq 4y ago
Right, but there was a used textbook market that usually worked for me.
wlesieutre 4y ago
But did it have a code for accessing online homework assignments that only worked once and made it useless to resell because next semester's students had to buy a new copy in order to submit homework? It's been a racket for a long time, but it's gotten much worse recently.

lupire 4y ago

How about boycotting colleges that are more focused on stealing your money than educating you?

banannaise 4y ago
Voting with your wallet loses to the tragedy of the commons.

runlevel1 4y ago

Isn't it mainly publishers who are responsible for that? I think authors get a pittance. I recall a professor getting something like $600 to write a chapter in a molecular pathology textbook back in 2008.

anonomousename 4y ago

Now, you need an access code to do your homework. It costs more than the textbook, and cannot be shared, rented, copied, or sold when you’re done with it. The reason it is so expensive is because it comes with a “optimized” etextbook to help you when you’re stuck on homework. The average I’d say is around $120 Predatory practices all around.