FeedTacoma.com | Porn on library computers. Do you say yes or no? | discussion forum | Tacoma blogs, events calendar, news, restaurants, photos, discussion, videos, and more!

RSS

Forum Home | Living La Vida Tacoma | Tacoma's Growth & Development

Porn on library computers. Do you say yes or no?

by fredo on 2/4/2012 @ 8:04am	The tribune is running a survey regarding the use of the library computers for the viewing of pornography. (I've never tried this and I'm not sure if its happening at the Tacoma Library or if they are referring to the incident at the Seattle Library last week). The taxpayers are furnishing this access because we are told that low income people need access to job information and students need access for school projects, etc. Nobody ever told the public that the computers were really going to used by perverted social misfits. A mother at the Seattle Library asked the porno guy to turn off his display and he replied "30 more seconds, I'm almost done" What do you think? Thumbs up or thumbs down on porno on the library computers?
by Jesse on 2/4/2012 @ 9:57am	By "thumbs", do you mean penis? Ba-dum-pch!
by JesseHillFan on 2/4/2012 @ 12:26pm	The naked human body can be considered artwork so I say it's O.K. to view art.
by fredo on 2/4/2012 @ 1:55pm	The porn can be seen by other patrons including little kids. Still OK?
by JesseHillFan on 2/4/2012 @ 3:00pm	Well maybe they could cordon an area so that juveniles couldn't see it.Maybe an adults only viewing section.
by jenyum on 2/4/2012 @ 9:42pm	According to the interwebs (which are never wrong) this is becoming a real problem in some libraries. The point seems to be for other people to catch them doing it. Maybe a private viewing section would make the whole exercise less appealing.
by InvaderPet on 2/4/2012 @ 11:22pm	Does wikifeet.com count as a porn site?
by fredo on 2/5/2012 @ 10:00am	IF (and that's a big IF) the library is required to provide internet access to people who wish to view pornography does it follow that the library has an obligation to provide printed materials such as men's magazines as part of it's acquisitions budget? What's the difference? If the materials are deemed to be legal and a portion of the patrons / tax payers want to view them should they be provided?
by JesseHillFan on 2/5/2012 @ 12:01pm	Here is a dilemma.What about scholars or students viewing classic nudes like Greek statues,paintings of nudes from the middle ages in books etc. That can be considered pornography too or artwork depending upon ones opinion.
by tacoma1 on 2/5/2012 @ 8:00pm	Classic nude Greek statues and paintings are not porn as long as they are girl on girl. IMHO.
by cisserosmiley on 2/6/2012 @ 7:42am	I like looking at porn at the library, but it makes me uncomfortable when others do it.
by InvaderPet on 2/6/2012 @ 8:02am	In "Disney's The Little mermaid", they got away with showing quite a lot of Ariel's nude body after she's first turned human. I think whatever Disney can show in an animated film, can be allowed in a public library. Or I'm just playing devil's advocate.
by fredo on 2/6/2012 @ 8:53am	Why doesn't the library provide Adult DVDs for patrons to check out? If they are legal and appeal to a significant portion of the clientele then why aren't they being provided? The library has no problem providing lots of DVDs that have little discernable value like Dumb and Dumber and the Mighty Morphin Power Rangers. Why is the library discriminating against the Adults? Invader Pet, by playing the devil's advocate you've introduced a thorny dilemma for the librarians. If Ariels naked body is OK, then what about the characters in the Japanese animation videos which are much more sexual involved but are still just cartoons?
by troysworktable on 2/6/2012 @ 2:17pm	The Puyallup Public Library allows open access to all information on its computer terminals for adults. It basically leaves the decision of what to view to the user. That being said, it also takes steps to protect others from viewing pornography, or anything that another user would/could/should take offense at. That includes: (1) unfiltered machines are only available to adults with library cards; (2) library cards issued to those under the age of 18 automatically enact filters on machines logged into by that card; (3) guest library cards (someone not issued a permanent card) only allow unfiltered machines; (4) privacy screens are attached to each monitor, allowing only someone sitting at that terminal (and perpendicular to the screen) to view content; (5) all computers are located near information desks within view of library staff (although see point 4).
by troysworktable on 2/6/2012 @ 2:18pm	The Puyallup Public Library also provides free WiFi, so someone could get around any filtering or privacy screens on their own laptop or smartphone, but then they would be the one responsible for such.
by fredo on 2/6/2012 @ 3:00pm	Let's assume that the library SHOULD provide internet access for people to look at porno. After all, it's legal and the patrons who wish to see it may be taxpayers, too! Does it follow that the library should also provide (legal) adult magazines? Does it further follow that they should also provide (legal) adult DVD's? If not, why not? Just playing the devil's advocate.
by troysworktable on 2/6/2012 @ 3:12pm	The library in the town I grew up in carried Playboy and Penthouse. Those magazines were "behind the counter" but could be requested for viewing in the library or for checkout. I remember seeing adults check them out and never thought anything about it. You could also buy them at most convenience and grocery stores, so it made sense that the same items were available in the library. But those were different days. Playboy and Penthouse seem tame compared to some of what streams on the internet now.
by troysworktable on 2/6/2012 @ 3:16pm	@fredo: One difference for me is the cost. The library pays for internet access, but they don't directly pay for the content that is delivered to each terminal. Adult DVDs and adult magazines would be directly paid for. So the cost to taxpayers is much different in each case. Taxpayers aren't paying for pornography on the internet; they are paying for access to information, whatever the content. Taxpayers would be paying for pornography directly if DVDs or magazines were purchased. Apples and oranges, as far as I'm concerned.
by fredo on 2/6/2012 @ 3:30pm	Well it's not apples and oranges. The library buys DVDs in the following ratings for people to enjoy: G, PG, PG-13, R. The DVDs are legal and the people enjoying them are taxpayers. X rated movies would be enjoyable to a segment of the patrons / taxpayers as well. They are also legal. The taxpayers are paying for DVDs and magazines DIRECTLY so how is it different if the titles are x rated and not r rated? If the Adult customers are going to pay for G rated movies for kids, then why can't the patrons who use those DVDs pay for some Adult DVDs? I don't see what the differnece is.
by ixia on 2/6/2012 @ 3:30pm	An average child sees about 8000 murders on TV before it finishes elementary school (not included library visits and online viewing). Yet a few seconds of naked bodies causes a far greater alarm?
by KevinFreitas on 2/6/2012 @ 3:34pm	@fredo -- The difference is that it would actually cost the library more to pay for monitoring/blocking/filtering software and devices than it would not to whereas the converse is true when purchasing physical material (like DVDs or magazines) it costs money to invest in bringing those "questionable" items into the library. That being said, I like the Puyallup library approach @Troy mentioned above. Seems fair.
by fredo on 2/6/2012 @ 3:41pm	The items you call "questionable" are nevertheless legal. Are you saying that there shouldn't be a single questionable DVD for folks to check out? Yes it costs money to bring questionable items into the library for circulation, but it also costs money to bring non-questionable items in. Also the acquisitions budget is furnished by taxpayers who want to see questionable materials. If they are paying for it...why can't they have it?
by fredo on 2/6/2012 @ 3:49pm	"We try to serve everyone, not just a few, and this sometimes means that we will have items in our collection that challenge or even enrage you. That’s part of what a public library is for." Twin Lakes Public Library website.
by troysworktable on 2/6/2012 @ 3:51pm	@fredo: You are forgetting that these libraries have hired staff to curate collections. There are plenty of items that don't make it into collection for one reason or another. You can always request a particular item be carried. Almost all libraries have request forms. Sometimes a staff will purchase those items, sometimes a staff will not. I would like my library to carry more Herman Melville, but the general public in Puyallup doesn't seem to share my enthusiasm. So, Moby-Dick, Bartleby the Scrivener, and Benito Cereno are on the shelves, and I went out and bought personal copies of Typee and Omoo. The collection is going to be driven by popular tastes and consensus, for the most part.
by troysworktable on 2/6/2012 @ 3:52pm	No library is going to carry every item available. That isn't reality.
by troysworktable on 2/6/2012 @ 3:54pm	Amen to the Twin Lakes Public Library. But then there are constraints: money and competing requests/interests. Space and resources limit what can be on the shelf. The internet doesn't have such limitations. Once again: apples and oranges. Limitations versus none. Indirect versus direct. Curated by staff versus curated by the user.
by fredo on 2/6/2012 @ 4:11pm	Let's set up a hypothetical troy. A suburban library of predominantly white patrons employs a curator who doesn't like movies which many people find questionable which seem to glorify thug lifestyles. Here are some samples of movies the curator refuses to stock: Menace2Society, Boyz N the Hood, Colors. When people ask for such titles she always delivers a stock response "there isn't enough money and we have many competing requests/interests." Good enough for you?
by troysworktable on 2/6/2012 @ 4:20pm	It happens. It's not as hypothetical as you think. I'm not defending the move, as much as I am trying to explain to you why you are unlikely to find DVDs/books/magazines of pornography on the shelves of your library. But, once again, you are (1) straying far from your original question; (2) not allowing any kind of conversation because you shut down anyone that disagrees with you on any point (or badger them out of the "conversation"), no matter how minor said point; and (3) I believe you may HEAR what others say, but you don't really LISTEN. If you weren't so confrontational and/or combative in your posts/updates/responses, you might actually be able to have something vital and worth paying attention to. I think you have great points at times that are muddled and diminished by all of the bullshit that one has to wade through to find them.
by fredo on 2/6/2012 @ 4:34pm	It's an open discussion, anybody can chime in at any time. I'm just playing the devil's advocate. I don't think the library should buy anything. I think all the materials should be donated. But we need to understand that the world's fairest curator is still going to employ his or her own prejudicial opinion when spending the public's acquisitions budget. It may be a thankless job but she should be careful to make sure that EVERY niche of patrons gets something. If the library is going to carry Huck Finn, which is demeaning to blacks, Dora the Explorer, which demeaning to latinos, then they should be willing to carry some adult interest products which sort of demean everybody. I don't see any theory upon which adult material can be kept out of the library. I'm not an attorney.
by troysworktable on 2/6/2012 @ 6:06pm	Yes, it's an open discussion, but you just keep goading, which is not conducive to an actual discussion. You don't allow others to play devil's advocate. When @InvaderPet did it above and played your own game, you refused to answer his/her question and then posed additional questions to him/her.
by troysworktable on 2/6/2012 @ 6:06pm	But once someone calls you on your BS, then you are inclined to give an actual answer, as above: "But we need to understand that the world's fairest curator is still going to employ his or her own prejudicial opinion when spending the public's acquisitions budget. It may be a thankless job but she should be careful to make sure that EVERY niche of patrons gets something. If the library is going to carry Huck Finn, which is demeaning to blacks, Dora the Explorer, which demeaning to latinos, then they should be willing to carry some adult interest products which sort of demean everybody. I don't see any theory upon which adult material can be kept out of the library. I'm not an attorney."
by troysworktable on 2/6/2012 @ 6:10pm	And, as in my example above, I showed you a library that carried adult materials. And, the reason that internet access in the library should be unfettered and unfiltered for adults is that someone will always find offense with an item. Your Huck Finn is someone else's Bible is someone else's My Two Mommies.
by troysworktable on 2/6/2012 @ 6:14pm	And, you can't please everyone. Some niches are going to be overlooked. The amount of media that is produced each year is enormous. New books alone amount in the tens of thousands of items each year. Once upon a time, there were fewer items produced each year and a library could carry many or most of those items, or at least a good majority of such. Acceleration of production, copying, and distribution has made it impossible to carry more than a small fraction of even new items. Throw in budget crises, with libraries often one of the first institutions to face cuts, and now you have multiple years of items to collect.
by fredo on 2/6/2012 @ 6:22pm	People don't always answer my queries but I don't get angry about it. I figure that many people haven't thought through their positions and when asked for a clarification they discover their positions are faulty. And I did respond to Invaders devil's advocacy. You mentioned that the library doesn't have enough Herman Melville for your tastes. Fair enough. Let's say there are a hundred more Melville lovers in the library service area and they would all like a complete stock of all Melville books, but at least they have access to some. The hundred library patrons who would like adult DVD customers don't have access to even one adult DVD. Why doesn't the curator insure that EVERYBODY gets a sampling of what they want. Here are some adult titles that probably belong in a library: Deep Throat, Devil in Miss Jones, Story of O, Emmanuelle, Caligula, etc. The Adult interest patrons pay taxes too.
by fredo on 2/6/2012 @ 6:45pm	I agree Troy that the Library can't carry everything. That's not an issue and let's not make it an issue. However, they can carry a few titles in every format which would interest each niche of patron. If they can't even accomplish that I would say they are doing a poor job.
by troysworktable on 2/6/2012 @ 6:49pm	The Tacoma Public Library does have a paperback book copy of The Story of O. It also has a DVD copy of Emmanuelle (2007). So it seems that adult customers have at least one book offering and one DVD offering of your list of items. My guess is that there are a few other "adult" items in the collection. Also: novels by Henry Miller, journals of Anaïs Nin, Zane's Sex Chronicles, Kama Sutra, stories by Susie Bright. It may not be as extensive as some would hope for, but there is a "sampling of what they want."
by InvaderPet on 2/6/2012 @ 6:50pm	I'm a "he" btw.
by troysworktable on 2/6/2012 @ 6:51pm	And, once again, request an item, and the library is likely to purchase a copy. Also, if they don't have it, they will try to find it at a library that does. Most libraries are now members of national partnerships.
by fredo on 2/6/2012 @ 6:59pm	Ok, good research Troy. Here's some more research. The tacoma library cites its collection @ 1,936,000 items. We know that people who like Adult material are a large sub population but let's say it's only 1 % of the patrons. 1% X 1,936,000 would mean the library should carry 19,000 adult oriented magazines/videos/books.
by tacoma1 on 2/6/2012 @ 7:01pm	Troysworktable. Don't let fredo suck u in. It's hard I know, but ultimately he is going to twist the conversation into a wages are too high rant or go off on a race baiting tangent.
by fredo on 2/6/2012 @ 7:16pm	tacoma1, not true. Today I've been staying right on focus: the positioning of adult materials in the modern library. I know that Troy is keen on library issues because he always weighs in on the subject. And his perspectives are good. I like to read them.
by troysworktable on 2/6/2012 @ 8:28pm	@tacoma1: I know his ways. That's why I called him out earlier. I'd rather have a legitimate conversation where I disagree with someone than a bunch of badgering, meandering, nonsensical questions.
by troysworktable on 2/6/2012 @ 8:29pm	@InvaderPet: so noted. I figured I would err on the side of playing "politically correct" until told otherwise.
by troysworktable on 2/6/2012 @ 8:37pm	@fredo: yet that is the joy of the internet. You can visit porn sites and look at all of the content you want. Libraries are moving away from hard media (books, DVDs, CDs) and toward electronic media (e-readers, mp3s) and digital content. Less of the former; more of the latter. So there isn't a need to stock as many of those items. Your Danielle Steele and Stephen King novels, on the other hand, are slower to make the transition. In fact, adult bookstores and movie houses are dying off faster than their mainstream kin because the adult film industry has embraced technology faster and more readily than the retail book, music, and film industries. The adult film industry also led the transition from VHS to DVD.
by Thorax O'Tool on 2/6/2012 @ 10:07pm	As we all know, it isn't the quality of the library's p0rn collection that counts, it's all about the size of the collection.
by fredo on 2/7/2012 @ 9:51am	Troy wrote@ Libraries are moving away from hard media (books, DVDs, CDs) and toward electronic media (e-readers, mp3s) and digital content. I think that's definitely true. This raises an interesting issue. If the library of the future was entirely e-based (there was no actually library building, or any actual librarians), but it had vastly more actual resources (perhaps all the Herman Mellville books) would that be a good thing? People could no longer drop off their brats there for a free hour of unpaid babysitting, but people would be less likely to be disappointed by discovering they couldn't get the book they wanted to read. We wouldn't have to worry any longer about people viewing porno on the library computers which little kids could inadvertantly look at.
by troysworktable on 2/7/2012 @ 10:30am	Public libraries are also meeting places. They provide places for non-profit organizations to meet; resume and computer training classes to be held; author readings; et cetera. They also function as a "third place," a place for people to gather other than the first and second places—home and work.<p> I don't envision libraries losing all of their hard media, so don't misquote me (which you didn't, but the danger is there). I expressed a movement where hard media is lesser and digital media is more; not an absence of the former.<p> But it is definitely a time to rethink the role of libraries, their function and roles, and how they continue in an electronic age.<p> In a democracy, there need to be places where the disenfranchised and poor have access to the same tools that the affluent have. In our increasingly information-dependent age, people without internet access should have a place to do just that.
by fredo on 2/7/2012 @ 10:54am	There are lots of places that non-profit organizations could meet if there were no libraries in the future. Every public school has several meeting rooms. Many restaurants have facilities which they will make available. I'll mention two: Knapps and Mandolin. I'm not sure the taxpayers should be obligated to provide libraries in the future if all library materials can be provided via the internet. At that point the library just becomes a sort of drop in center for the poor, the infirmed, and the folks who need a free babysitter. It would be cheaper for the city of the future to give every family in town a Kindle (65,000 X $99 =$6,400,000) than to continue funding the sarcophagus we currently refer to as a library.
by troysworktable on 2/7/2012 @ 11:06am	Not all library materials can be provided via the internet. Many databases need to operate on dedicated servers or subscription machines. But, perhaps you just don't want the poor, the infirm, and the disenfranchised to be able to gather. People who care about democracy and freedom do. Libraries provide that gathering space as well as place the tools of freedom in their hands. But, just as you don't want the poor and the infirm to be able to make a living wage, it seems that you don't want them to be able to learn about their world or their culture. It must be nice to sit in your ivory tower and sneer at the inferior masses.
by fredo on 2/7/2012 @ 11:17am	"It must be nice to sit in your ivory tower and sneer at the inferior masses." Ha, I'm only interested in the truth troy, I'm not trying to create a class war. I understand that some materials cannot CURRENTLY be provided via the internet. On that, we are in agreement. That's why I used the code phrase "in the future." You can't discuss the future by always relying on the way things were done in the past. "perhaps you just don't want the poor, the infirm, and the disenfranchised to be able to gather." troy of course, nothing in my comment indicated that. I said that people who wanted to meet could use the meeting space that's available in every public school and many private locations as well. Maybe you didn't see that. Since it's important to you that public meeting spaces include the word "library," perhaps the name of every public school could be changed to include the term "...and Public Library meeting place."
by troysworktable on 2/7/2012 @ 11:22am	Are you going to deny a bias or prejudice against the poor? Your words, not mine: "At that point the library just becomes a sort of drop in center for the poor, the infirmed, and the folks who need a free babysitter." "In the future," are you going to complain that as a taxpayer you shouldn't have to pay to provide an electronic reader/tablet computer for the poor and infirm? And, finally, are you an active library user? If so, how do YOU use the library?
by troysworktable on 2/7/2012 @ 11:24am	Use this library valuator to find out how much YOU save in your personal budget by utilizing the resources of a public library: www.cityofpuyallup.org/library/page.php?... I use $900 to $1,200 of resources per month! That is on top of the many book, magazines, literary journals that I subscribe to or purchase on my own.
by fredo on 2/7/2012 @ 11:25am	tacoma1 wrote@ "Don't let fredo suck u in. It's hard I know, but ultimately he is going to twist the conversation into a wages are too high rant" Troy wrote@ "just as you don't want the poor and the infirm to be able to make a living wage" What a delicious irony
by troysworktable on 2/7/2012 @ 11:34am	That's not irony. You do think everyone is out to suck on your taxpayer teat, as though you were the only taxpayer. You have a record of such statements across many, many FeedTacoma threads. You raised it by invoking the poor and the infirm. It doesn't take much to make the logical leap. Once again, as I stated much earlier, you hear but you don't listen.
by troysworktable on 2/7/2012 @ 11:35am	Also, you obfuscate again rather than answer questions posed to you. Also, I knew where you were going to go with the "all-digital so libraries aren't needed" argument. I was laughing with someone last night about what your "next move" would be.
by troysworktable on 2/7/2012 @ 11:37am	Predictability isn't always a bad thing, although it is often a sad thing.
by fredo on 2/7/2012 @ 11:38am	Well, I played around with your "library calculator" Troy. It's quite a hilarious exercise and I encourage everybody to try it out. Here are some odd assumptions: The library is free E-book downloads are worth $15 each Reading a newspaper is worth $2 each Borrowing a DVD is worth $28 each I guess if you plug in a bunch of nonsense you will get an accurate picture of the dollar value of library services.
by InvaderPet on 2/7/2012 @ 11:38am	@Fredo- "Invader Pet, by playing the devil's advocate you've introduced a thorny dilemma for the librarians. If Ariels naked body is OK, then what about the characters in the Japanese animation videos which are much more sexual involved but are still just cartoons?" I think there's a slight difference between the two. Ariel's nudity was innocent, not blatantly sexual.
by fredo on 2/7/2012 @ 11:42am	Tacoma1 warned you that I would try to raise the issue of wages. Lo and behold, you yourself raised the issue. That's the precise definition of irony. Sorry if you don't understand it.
by troysworktable on 2/7/2012 @ 11:44am	@fredo: you are just showing your ignorance now. The library may be free, but those items wouldn't be if you had to purchase them. Hence the value of using the library. If you had to purchase an e-book on your reader, the average cost is $15. Maybe you don't understand the concept. If I had to purchase all of the books, DVDs, and CDs that I check out each month, the value of those items would be X number of dollars. Hence I save X number of dollars, which is the monetary value to me.
by fredo on 2/7/2012 @ 11:45am	"I think there's a slight difference between the two. Ariel's nudity was innocent, not blatantly sexual." Invader Yes, the Ariel depictions are pretty innocent, but there are lots of Japanese animations which are pretty innocent too. There's a huge gray area here. Would like the job of deciding which animation videos fall into the category of "innocent nudity" and "blatantly sexual?"
by InvaderPet on 2/7/2012 @ 11:49am	Better than doing nothing, I suppose.
by fredo on 2/7/2012 @ 11:50am	" If you had to purchase an e-book on your reader, the average cost is $15. Maybe you don't understand the concept." Troy I understand the concept pretty well. When you PURCHASE an e-book you have an ownership interest in the material which lasts forever. I can re-read books I bought on my Kindle years ago. When you BORROW an ebook from the library it has an expiration date. After that date it will no longer be on your device. That's a big difference. Also most e-books I've purchased were $10 or they were available free. I'd say the average price of an e-book is about $5 and you OWN it. You're not borrowing it. Maybe you don't understand the concept.
by troysworktable on 2/7/2012 @ 11:50am	Irony: "Incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occur." It would be ironic, if you didn't invoke the poor and infirm.
by troysworktable on 2/7/2012 @ 11:52am	And, once again, I challenge you to answer the most recent questions I posed. That would show that you didn't just hear me, but are an active listener. It would also show that this is a mature conversation with multiple participants in said conversation, and not just some masturbatory long-term trolling that you seem to enjoy engaging in.
by fredo on 2/7/2012 @ 11:53am	If I had to purchase all of the books, DVDs, and CDs that I check out each month, the value of those items would be X number of dollars. Hence I save X number of dollars, which is the monetary value to me. You can't compare the cost of an OWNERSHIIP interest in a DVD to the cost of BORROWING the DVD overnight Most of them sell for about $15, that's if you want to own them. You can rent them a redbox for .99 cents. When you get a DVD from the library you didn't save $28.00 you only saved .99
by fredo on 2/7/2012 @ 11:56am	OK, I'll answer your questions: "Are you going to deny a bias or prejudice against the poor?" yes In the future," are you going to complain that as a taxpayer you shouldn't have to pay to provide an electronic reader/tablet computer for the poor and infirm? I'm not sure I can answer that question without knowing the economic conditions of the future. And, finally, are you an active library user? If so, how do YOU use the library? I take my kids over there a few times a year to check out some books and I used the library computer one day when my printer was out of ink. I've checked my property tax statements and I'm pretty sure I've paid enough to cover all the services my family used directly.
by troysworktable on 2/7/2012 @ 12:03pm	You can argue ownership versus rental on DVDs. I like to watch most movies over and over, so I tend to own. But what about books? Where else can you rent those from that wouldn't cost you the price of the book? Where else can you rent CDs from that wouldn't cost you the price of the book? Most of what I check out from the library is books, including hundreds of dollars of children's books. If I didn't check them out, I would need to purchase them to read them. Or find someone else to borrow them from. In that case, my time in seeking out a particular book has value, and, in our culture, that time has a monetary value as well.
by troysworktable on 2/7/2012 @ 12:04pm	"I've checked my property tax statements and I'm pretty sure I've paid enough to cover all the services my family used directly." —@fredo I call bullshit on that. You undercut the points you make that are valid by your outright lies.
by fredo on 2/7/2012 @ 12:21pm	If you want to continue to believe that borrowing something overnight is just as valuable as owning it that's OK with me Troy. But admit it, the library calculator is full of unexplained assumptions. When I purchased the DVD of Avatar for $28 did I actually save $300,000,000 because I wasn't required to film the movie?
by fredo on 2/7/2012 @ 12:22pm	If you want to continue to believe that borrowing something overnight is just as valuable as owning it that's OK with me Troy. But admit it, the library calculator is full of unexplained assumptions. When I purchased the DVD of Avatar for $28 did I actually save $300,000,000 because I wasn't required to film the movie?
by troysworktable on 2/7/2012 @ 12:29pm	Obviously you don't understand the concept of value. If you did, then your answer would have been something along the line of, "If you want to continue to believe that borrowing something overnight is just as valuable as owning it that's OK with me Troy, but I believe the value would be $1 for the rental from Redbox as opposed to your value of $28 for purchasing it."
by cisserosmiley on 2/7/2012 @ 12:32pm	Fredo you are correct to point out the exclusion of proper depreciation and loss of exclusive use that comes with a purchase. Today's generation just copies dvd's when they rent them anyway...crooks!