Conference turris::womannotes-v2

    
    I've been looking around for a copy of Burton's translation of the
    Arabian Nights.  (I've been hoping to turn up a reprint from the period
    1890..1910 (or a good (a la Dover) reprint of such a reprint) since I
    really enjoy the sort of illustrations typically done during that
    time...I mention that in case someone happens to know where I can get
    such an edition) 
    
    Anyway.  I have turned up _a_ reprint, but from the 1920s I'd guess tho
    there's no date.  I don't think it's a facsimile apart from a couple
    title pages because the use of type in the body doesn't look right. 
    The illustrations look like photocopies of the originals, though,
    they're pretty muddy.  The paper looks like standard sulphite, fake-
    deckled outer edges and the standard anti-dust gilding top and bottom. 
    Hollow bound (looks like library binding, to be truthful).  It's a
    6-volume set, and the guy wants $75 for it.  That seems high to me,
    considering, but maybe it really isn't.  
    
    Opinions?  Suggestions?
    
    						=maggie

    Maggie,
    I'm no expert on books, but i do a bit of antiqueing, so have
    noticed a few prices...
    and I agree, the $75 seems high.  I would think more like 50-60,
    or even less depending on condition--both of the binding (leather
    vs. cardboard, etc) and the paper.  Also, I should think the 
    illustrations ought to be crisp and clear for the price he is
    quoting. 
    Maybe I'm way off base here, but I think its a bit steep.
    did you try negotiating???
    
    deb
    

    No, I didn't want to start up unless I had some reason to believe I was
    making sense, Deb, but my first reaction was the same as yours: $50-60.
    
    The condition of the books looked pretty good, a couple of the pages I
    looked at were even uncut.  I didn't actually check to see whether all
    the pages were even present, but the bindings (library cloth over
    cardboard) didn't look abused enough to make me immediately suspicious. 
    The set looked as though it had sat around in somebody's bookcase for
    50 years or so without ever being read much (if at all).  As I say, the
    paper looks like sulphite, but it's not even yellowed.
    
    						=maggie

Help - I need a copy of yesterday's (Monday, Aug 29) Science Section of
the NY Times.  Anyone have a copy they could spare me?

TIA,

D!

(You could send it to me goat-mail: Diana Carroll, ZK2-3/n30)

    I have an article on the chemical (and electrochemical) mechanisms
    involved in the etch rates of silicon and germanium.  I have been
    trying to nail this stuff down for what seems like EONS!!!
    
    But I don't speak or read Czeck, and it was published in "Chemicke
    Listy".
    
    I am desparate for a translator, and can give a list of technical words
    we can expect to see which might not be work-a-day Czeck ...
    

    Actually, Mez, shouldn't be more along the lines of
    
    	WANNA DEFUN GIRLS JUST
    
    (using proper prefix notation, of course)?  :-)
    
    -- Mike

    
    	At times like these, being a hardware weenie is a distinct
    	disadvantage....
    
    	And I even had the benefit of a personal translation from
    	Mike V.  (It didn't help.)  ;^)
    

I am *not* (heh) laughing (er, ha ha).  I repeat, it is (smirk) NOT FUNNY.
(chortle).  The lowerst form of humor, indeed.  (Guffaw)  Weenie humor
is in terrible (giggle) bad taste.

D!

    Is that why girls want to have matched parentheses?

    Having heard some South African women's jive on WGBH's "AfroPop"
    program last year, I've been hunting for records.  [Irrelevant opinion:
    It's dynamite stuff!  If you've never heard it before, try some!]
    
    I managed to get two records, one ("Izibani Zomgqashiyo") featuring the
    Mahotella Queens, the top women's group of the '70s, and the other a
    collection of several groups, including the Queens and the Dark City
    Sisters, the top group of the '60s.  (And if anyone knows where I can
    get more, for pity's sake tell me!)
    
    My question:  although the women are alleged to be the featured
    performers, the Queens particularly seem instead to be singing mostly
    backup to male soloists.  The guys sing very well but they aren't why I
    bought the records; I *much* prefer the women-only cuts, as for
    instance the Sisters singing (I can't remember the Zulu title) "Outside
    South Africa".
    
    What's going on?  Is there something about the style that I don't
    understand, is the "featuring" a mere market ploy to get women to buy
    the records, or what?  
                              
							=maggie

Ha .13 (Mike? KBear? I don't quite know how to refer to you personally). You
must be as old as I am :-) (or maybe older?). They turned 6.031 and 6.032 into
6.001 and 6.004, so that they had lovely symmetry with 6.002 and 6.003. And
they iced 6.030 (if you don't have a PC, how can you do CS at MIT???).
	Mez

Phew, I'm glad I went course 3. =)

And they have the Athena system now (with many donated DEC workstations) so all
the programming is done on those.

Lisa/who still spends several nights a week on that campus. 

	Mez,

	I took it the last semester Michael Dertouzes (sp) taught the course
before moving on to bigger and better things ...  er I hope that dates me
sufficiently.  Er ah, Guy Steele was one year ahead of me in the same schools
since (oh my word) 1967.  
	BTW - ;-) is a 6000-400 considered a PC ;-) ;-) ;-)

					ciao, KBear

AKA:  qaz,kow,koalabear,kbear,  muwa <- pronounced meesha>  Michael.
	Oh yeah, a certain 3 year old refers to me as "That"