Submitted by: Alex via Submit a Kludge!
Seriously. I demand to know who committed this atrocity! This is a crime against literacy! Where’s my pitch fork? – Ms. Fix-It
Favorite Comment(s)!: Fixer Smitty is on to the next children’s best seller, “If you give a redneck a book, he’s going to want a broken down La-Z-Boy reading chair. When you give him the broken down La-Z-Boy reading chair, he’ll probably ask for a threadbare flannel blanket.”
Continued: Fixer kc/cc adds, “When you give him the threadbare blanket, then he’s probably going to just want to take a nap…and then you’re REALLY never going to get all those cars cleared out of the yard…”
-
-
Copy & paste this:
![\"Quantcast\"/](\"http://pixel.quantserve.com/pixel/p-483xl95pmUiaY.gif\")
*Grabs a torch* Kill The Monster!!!
I don’t get you people. Encyclopedias go out of date.
Do you sit around and read old encyclopedias?
Are they collectible or something?
Only the ones that are autographed by Pliny the Elder.
Yes on both counts.
I Have an Arthur Mee’s Childrens’ encyclopedia which I still read
I still have Charlie Brown’s ‘Cyclopedia.
I FORGOT ABOUT THOSE!
they do go out of date, in some aspects, still, i don’t get how someone could ever do that to any book. and reading old things will always be useful. i think reading “out of date” stuff is great for getting to know a bit about how though and knowledge have evolved
and it still hurts to look at it, at least before you start thinking of reasons why it could be ok to do that or if the picture’s photoshopped
That’s not it. It’s a book. You don’t do stuff like that to books.
Recycle them into new books/paper; donate them; sell them to guys like me. The internet encyclopaedias may be updated constantly, but they are not as well researched or accurate as the old style and the print ones provide a record of the progress of information and knowledge, while web-based encyclopaedias provide very little in that area. Print encyclopaedias are not obsolete.
That said, I: A) definitely read old encyclopaedias and B) think this is a compelling – albeit extremely uncomfortable – piece of art. It’s not an actual kludge, but a piece of art; which makes it forgivable(but still wrong).
You people are all presuming the other half of it was in the same nice condition – maybe it was already ruined, and this was a nice way to reuse what was left?
You know what they say when you assume…
Books are incredibly hard to cut through, believe it or not – they’re denser than the trees they’re made from. The amount of energy expended here is almost certainly more than would have been needed to go out and buy a broom, or even made one out of something more conventional (say, twigs). This isn’t really a kludge – it’s just a really concise Rube Goldberg machine.
It *has* been recycled.
He did recycle it
Huh… Good point… Still… I just… Dammit, I’m a Bibliophile and this picture just hurts. Even if it does hold up under logic. I love logic and I love books, especially old ones. And thus, his picture quite literally tears my soul in two.
And I think the *broom* won’t even make such a good work at sweeping dust…
Actually it depends on the encyclopedia. I have a set from 1924 that are first editions so they are actually worth money even though they’re massively out of date.
Working in a library though, this actually appeals to me. Because we have so many out of date books that are taking up shelf room.
Consider this. To replace the Encyclopedia Britannica today costs a minimum of $2650.00 for the minimal version. I checked last month, wanting to replace my out of date set. Now, consider what this broom really just cost. As a writer I use my Encyclopedia’s weekly. It is more reliable that the World Wide Web and requires no electrical power to use in the daytime.
You really don’t get it, do you. Encyclopedias aren’t cartons of milk. The editors and publishers do have to update information in them, but, in order to keep them of a size and cost people can deal with, part of the process involves deciding what in prior editions to leave out of subsequent ones. I have older encyclopedias that I keep precisely because they have information that is still perfectly correct that isn’t in the newer editions, or has been so truncated that it is now largely worthless. Two examples are the 1900 era Britannica articles on castles and flight, versus later editions. Most of the information on castle architecture is gone, along with some wonderful illustrations and analysis. The article on flight before 1903 and after are completely different. The earlier ones have wonderful analyses of the problems faced, while the later ones are almost purely technical, and don’t give one half a clue what the achievement meant.
In the late 70′s, a door-to-door encyclopedia salesman came to our house. My Dad bartered his crappy mini Datsun truck for a set of books, and they still own them. As a 12 year old, I was fascinated by them!
Yes, but that’s small comfort when you have a report due on the post-Soviet countries, and your encyclopedia is dated 1975! Saving old encyclopedias is for archival libraries, for the rest of us they’re in the way.
On the last page of every encyclopedia there is a decal sheet. You just get a “History” decal and use it to cover where it says “Geography”. Voila, updated.
you’re obviously old(er) than some of the other people around here. I mean, who defends an encyclopedia unless their not so modern. not saying that you’re wrong- books are fine, but you don’t think its great that we have access to the same things on the web that we did in books? and it’s so much cheaper, too!
Ummm….this post itself is sad. Reading stuff like this makes me tremble for the future of this country. I’m not some old crankypants either, I’m a twentysomething crankypants.
No, right now you can’t get the same things on the internet as in books. The internet is great, but books are generally better if you want to really learn about something. Not to mention novels and stuff. As for encyclopedias- I love wikipedia and all, but its kind of hit or miss whether or not the article will be reliable or well-written.
As for being free- most libraries are free or close to it. And there’s even this cool thing called interlibrary loan.
Yes, and EVERYTHING you read on the InterWebz is true, right?
(Yeah, i know, books aren’t exactly safe from that either….)
encyclopedia’s don’t really go out of date…
Scott Hall, I don’t know who you are, but I officially love you.
Why do you guys freak out because someone rips up a book?
It’s PAPER & INK! It’s not living, it does not have feelings.
It’s not like it hurt anything. PAPER AND INK!!!!!!!!!
Mildred Montag, is that you? Why don’t you go watch your “White Clown Show” and leave the bibliophiles here alone, you illiterate ingrate?
I don’t think encyclopedias are collectable, but yes, I do read old encyclopedias, especially if it’s one of the Children’s Encyclopedias.
I hate people who think that they can harm books whenever and however the want to. Please shut up, or I will hit you over the head with a kludged shovel involving adding several weights onto it and then using a pulley to lift it up and drop it with as muck force as possible.
Also, my answer to the title is yes.
Oh, this just hurts.
I wonder what they used to cut the pages so fine??
An awful lot of work for a dollar broom……..!!!
That’s why it was clearly done as a piece of art. Settle down book nazis.
Thank you!
That was my first thought too. I’ve done lots of art projects with old books that involve serious destruction… as have many, many others.
Thanks Wulf. Now I have to go watch Beauty and the Beast.
The book looks brand new, it’s possible it had a defect.
Relax, it’s only 14th edition. That one has a spelling error in it.
Silly, it’s the fourteenth volume… of 212. I think that’s the one mostly associated with expired European countries, so never used anyways.
No! Volume 14 has words starting with “kl*” to “kw*”! Not a big lost!
*GASP* that means it’s the one with Kludgistan!
Bwaahahaha!
+1 to the cuddly kitten.
Ugg. Praise to JB. Time Kitten was the first response.
Grammar Nazi broom sweeps your bad grammar.
Actually, that may not be a bad use for the Really outdated encyclopedias.
it looks photoshopped to me
No! It can’t be real. Tell me this is not happening!
If that was Encyclopedia Americana then we’d have a problem.
The college I went to still has The Great Soviet Encyclopedia. That thing is awesome. The communists had figured out how to politicize totally non-political things at least a generation ahead of us.
I’ve actually used The Great Soviet Encyclopedia when writing research papers. You’re right on both counts – it IS awesome as well as incredibly politicized! Thanks for posting your comment!
Term papers for the motherland!
quit Stalin and tell me your Marx
*claps*
What? I always use the Britannica to brush up on a subject.
…zing.
BIBLIOPHILE RAGE!!!
WHYYYY??? THEY GO OUT OF DATE!!!
WHO CARES?! I actually LOVE reading old encyclopedias. It’s really interesting finding out how far our knowledge has come, how it’s changed. Even the wording of some of the entries is illuminating. Read the old 1910 edition, freely available online, to see what I mean. To be honest, I’d rather thumb through an actual 1910 edition then one online but still.
Back on subject, WHO CARES IF THEY GO OUT OF DATE, IT’S STILL A WONDERFUL PIECE OF FREAKIN’ HISTORY YOU ILLITERATE HICK!
I AGREE WITH THE GROUP SENTIMENT THAT WRITING THINGS WITH CAPS LOCK ON HELPS ME CEMENT THE VALIDITY OF MY ARGUMENT.
WIN
wELL, i’M NOT SURE IT CEMENTS validity, PER SE, BUT IT DOES WORK THE SAME AS SHOUTING IN REAL LIFE. iT GETS YOUR ATTENTION, ADDS EMPHASIS, CONVEYS PASSION AND REALLY CAN BE CONVINCING. bUT, IT’S ALSO ANNOYING AS HELL IF NOT USED PROPERLY(AS IS THE FOLLOWING)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1!!1!!112
No they don’t. That is what Annuals are for.
Seriously… how many of you have used or even picked up an encyclopedia in the last five years? Isn’t that what the internet is for now?
That being said, they should have used “Twilight” instead.
agreed, although rubbing that on the floor would probably just make the floor crappier
Twilight would leave the floor all sparkly in the sun, though perhaps not in a way that is necessarily desirable.
Uh … no. Twilight is for starting fires in an incinerator. Any other use risks contamination.
Not to mention, there is absolutely no use for a set of encyclopedias once you have purchased a newer edition. Now, if it had been a copy of Dune…
DDDDDDDDDDDUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Er.. What might I say? I’m a fan
*raises hand* I have… but maybe I don’t really count! My ENTIRE family is made up of academics and they tend to argue what words mean and so forth and so forth
Sorry Chris. The internet is extremely inaccurate. Wikipedia is the perfect example. The Encyclopedia Britannica is as close to perfection as you can get. Even if parts are not up to date, it’s still an invaluable resource.
BRING OUT THE TAR AND FEATHERS!!! OR THE MOB WITH TORCHES!
I dunno… The Encyclopaedia Britannica has an online edition, and it’s probably less expensive, lighter, and more convenient to buy the digital electronic edition, anyway.
Digital encyclopedias: A bookcase of knowledge in the palm of your hand.
Yes, but cutting up your computer to make a broom is much more difficult.
Seriously, have you ever considered how many mistakes there are on the internet ?
A written encyclopaedia is always more reliable than the internet, because you can be sure that the writers in it are qualified and whats has been written has been checked. On the internet, the best and the worst can be found.
In my field (history) it is more than common to avoid the internet and keep picking up books and encyclopaedias
> A written encyclopaedia is always more reliable than the internet, because you can be sure that the writers in it are qualified and whats has been written has been checked.
Lol. That’s not how it works.
Lol. That is how it works.
Think of it this way… if Britannica was found to be as lax as the folks who work on Wikipedia. Just wow. You suppose that might be why a basic set of Britannica costs over $2000? (besides materials costs, obviously… they have to pay for proper research, not look to the fools at TMZ for the latest information)
This is why you never give a redneck a book.
If you give a redneck a book, he’s going to want a broken down La-Z-Boy reading chair.
When you give him the broken down La-Z-Boy reading chair, he’ll probably ask for a threadbare flannel blanket.
…
When you give him the threadbare blanket, then he’s probably going to just want to take a nap…and then you’re REALLY never going to get all those cars cleared out of the yard…
(Hmm. As it turns out, it probably is much easier if you give a mouse a cookie, or maybe even if you give a pig a pancake, than if you give a redneck a book. Thanks for pointing it out.)
Or give a moose a muffin.
But if you give him a broken down La-Z-Boy IN one of the yard cars, and he falls asleep under the thread-bare flannel blanket, you can use the encyclopedia as a weight on the gas pedal, and you’ve killed several birds with one stone…
The British nanny brought along a distinctly British Kludge. “These encyclopedias are pointless,” said she, and built a British broom.
Remarkably, the floors began to show a strong British shine. And everyone in the house felt smarter, somehow.
Win!
Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. is an American company based in Chicago, Illinois, best known for publishing the Encyclopædia Britannica, the world’s oldest continuously-published encyclopaedia.
In 1920, the trademark and publication rights were sold to Sears Roebuck, which held them until 1943, when ownership passed to William Benton.
In January 1996, the company was purchased by billionaire Swiss financier Jacqui Safra.
British, my arse!
5 Bucks says he looked that up on Wikipedia
@ Ms. Fix it
Can’t find your pitch fork? Go ahead and make one out of a copy of “Dante’s Divine Comedy”. The irony will be delicious!
Just one quick suggestion: don’t misspell ‘pitchfork’ while railing against crimes against literacy. Just a suggestion.
Of course, I shouldn’t have used just and against twice that quickly, so no one’s perfect.
[citation needed]
hahahahah . . . epic!
Ha!!!!
I recognize that, its a non-volatile storage media. Quite obsolete.
The person who did that should be brought to book!
Or, failing that, throw the book at them. Better yet, the whole of the rest of the set.
Could you imagine the uproar if that were a bible
(Which, mind you, is sort of a bible to bibliophiles)
On another note ONWARD ENRAGED GEEKS squad
Bible paper isn’t sturdy enough for sweeping. Think it through, people.
You would end up with disposable broom! Just get another one from the hotel drawer and start dusting again!
Never mind that, there will be dead people if you make the same out of the Qur’an, Koran, coran… how do you spell that? Gimme the encyclopedia… oops!
Yeah, just look at the cartoonist in Denmark.
*twitch*
If it were possible, nerds would beat the creator of this…thing. But you know, nerds.
In packs, just like goblins, nerds can be quite vicious.
Here is the original site of the artist:
http://www.bookdust.com/
Personally, I think the lobster is cool.
The book with the leaf shape cut out of it struck me, but the scorpion has my vote…hands down!
How could he do that to Duchamp?
I think Duchamp would have loved this. The choice seems deliberate.
I completely changed my mind about this broom. That artist is awesome.
Mhmhm… Why can’t he use normal paper? This emotional destruction of knowledge is just… silly.
I have to admit, that is one area where Wikipedia will never catch up to print encyclopedias.
Nah. If you can use a book as a broom, you can use the static charge from the monitor to dust.
that, is awful. a book would never be any good as a broom! seriously, what do expect to sweep with that, a terrible waste of a broom handle.
Look at the source link a few posts up. This is meant as art, not for functionality. Please, stop eating the paint chips off the door jamb.
Well, this is a clearinghouse for kludges. Even if this isn’t actually a kludge we can hardly be expected not to view it through kludge-tinted glasses. Kludged tinted glasses that are made out of Coke bottle bottoms and copper telephone wire.
Also collectible.
and duct tape, don’t forget the duct tape!
Wall candy?
What you don’t see is that it is being used to sweep up Encyclopedia Dramatica.
cause, you know, brooms are SO expensive….
These kind of are, I bet– what’s a set of these brooms cost these days? About $3000?
The Nimbus 2000 costs about that much.
That is an excellent point. You could probably get 30-something of these, plus an index, for the cost of just one Firebolt.
I went to the library the other day, because I was tired of the ease-of-use internet, and also to use the public shredder, but I was told the custodian must have broke it somehow.
How good can that encyclopedia be when they misspell ‘encyclopedia’ right on the cover?
It’s only misspelled if you forget the Britanica part – you know – where they spell colour and organisation properly.
hahahaha WIN
I love when Americans tell Brits they’re spelling things wrong. Like, um, no. AMERICANS spell it wrong, it was spelled (spelt) that way in Britain long before we fvcked it up.
Well, we were trying to tell the British where to stick their Empire.
It’s Encyclopaedia BRITANNICA, not Encyclopedia Americana
In addition to the other comments here (Americans complaining about spelling… ahem.. color??? ) I’d also ad that what is shown is NOT the front cover, but the spine…
::sigh::
of course… that should have been ADD but hey! who’s counting!?!
Sorry, Couldn’t find your pitchfork. So, we used a utility knife to cut the one out of Grant Wood’s American Gothic. …Here you go!
Reduce, reuse, recycle.
Moonlighting?
I choose to look at it this way:
At least I will have something to sweep up the tiny shards of my broken heart that are lying all over the floor.
Sweep shards with that and you’ll have confetti for your next celebration!
Seriously guys Chuck Norris can do what he wants !
Seems like a lot of work for a broom.
Everyone knows a new broom sweeps clean but an old book knows all the corners…
Your on the ball…
Do you folks have any idea how many books get pulped each year? Like slaughtering steer, it’s part of the natural cycle of things, but you get upset when you see it up close. I realize this is an arts project. But even if it weren’t, it’s a better re-use than sending it off to Goodwill, where it will end up in the recycle bin and shredded, only to wind up as a course paper towel on the floor of a men’s room in some gas station in Topeka.
Sorry, I think I just channelled Dennis Miller for a second.
There’s only one solution…burn all the books! *Brought to you by the Kansas Board of Education.*
Where the world really IS flat…
I thought that was Florida.
No, Florida is God’s waiting room.
Who actually uses hard-cover Encyclopedias now?
They are always going to be several months out-of-date while digital encyclopedias are always going to be up-to-date within a few *days*.
Depends on what you want it for.
It is actually Volume 14, but of an older edition than the 2010 edition sitting behind me in the Reference section. As a professional librarian for 15 years, I LOVE this!
I want to see your credentials.
yeah, you might have to turn in your library card for that heresy!
Find them. Beat them. Make them hand-copy a new volume. Then beat them with it.
(pro-book rage mode activated)
We’re going to clean up your atrocious grammar one way or another, young man. Now grab my broom and stop referring to me as a witch, otherwise I may be force to stick the handle where the sun doesn’t shine. Do I make myself clear?
So that’s what the curlers on the Olympics were using. Trying to scare the big sliding rock with knowledge!
They are really good cross-word solvers between games!
I have a 70′s encyclopedia set. I bought it because it was pretty. I’ll never crack it. It was $5 total.
There are lots and lots of them out there. I love books, and I like them even when they’re useless, but really…there ARE books that can safely be spared for art.
Like most schoolbooks, or books that were made after a film, or even worser, after a videogame.
*WoW Book Hhrrkkkk*
C’mon with the internet and such, when was the last time any of you used an encyclopaedia?
Last week. I prefer them for accuracy.
Thanks to Wikipedia, paper books are all obsolete now anyways.
Viva La Electronic Revolution!
Not if you go to university and your profs don´t give a damn about wikipedia.
I still use encyclopedias. There are things you still don´t find online.
I was one of those lucky kids who got to write papers before the teachers had ever heard of Wikipedia. I knew about it in 2003, and I didn’t see anyone else talk cite it until 2005. Then it mushroomed in infamy, but I still had those two years.
Even if you can’t cite Wikipedia, you can still use it for background, and of course clicking the links at the bottom of a page to find “real” references (well, “real” in internet terms, anyway)
the fact that you consider wikipedia to be the end all be all of information on the internet shows how much damage wikipedia has done to being able to find useful information anywhere else on the internet
Normally, I would be with you, but:
1) Out of date
2) Wikipedia
Because Wikipedia is the end all, be all of knowledge.
Hope you don’t mind I just updated that important thing you were looking up and changed it all to complete and utter bullsh*t.
What kinda sick person does that to a book?! :O
It was just a very unsuccessful encyclopaedia salesman who’s been reduced to sweeping floors by the rise of Wikipedia.
I think we’ve finally discovered a use for the works of people like Kevin Trudeau, Bill O’Reilly, and Ann Coultier.
Another example of the sweeping changes taking place in the print media business.
All (they) are is dust in the wind.
All that information is on the internet now, there is nothing atrocious about this. In fact, it’ll probably see more use as a broom than it ever would sitting in a high school library.
Okay, ow… that actually stung a little to see…
That’s one thing you can’t do with Wikipedia.
Really? Any idiot can update a page including changing everything. There is a reason colleges don’t want you using Wikipedia.
ohhhh…. that’s wat books were made for
This picture was taken at the Wikipedia offices, it’s what the janitor uses to sweep the floor.
A well executed upgrade in my opinion! I’m just happy to see it put to go use than just gathering dust on someone shelf, It’s sweeping it up!
So at one point in the distant past, encyclopedias were made by killing trees, slicing them up into thin sashimi like sheets, and putting the words right on them? I don’t get it, did old people not know how to use the Internet?
/s
This is why our childrens is not learning.
Are Not Learning, not Is Not Learning.
Grantski, how long did you work for G.W.?
Mind you, I don’t think you ever considered the advantages of owning a really fine set of encyclopedias.
“I don’t need a plumber. You’re that clever shark, aren’t you?”…
“I’m only a dolphin, ma’am.”
“A dolphin? Well…okay.”
Ah yes….I was wondering if anyone was going to bring this up! Great job!
I’d like to see them try do this with a Kindle.
As an English major and rabid reader, I find this very clever and want one myself!
Encyclopedias go out of date and, in this day of internet, they’re obsolete.
Its really the Recyclopedia Britanica at this point.
The Encarta CD-ROM encyclopedia had the edges sharpened, attached to an old carpet sweeper, and now makes a rather dandy lawn mower…
When Johnny was told to “Sweep the leg.” of that kid in the Encyclopedia Britannica commercial, this is what he used.
Guess the question here is: where are the previous 13 volumes? Were they just models and failed attempts? Or is there one with barely no paper left doing it’s time as a squeegee?
I used to own an EB set, and I hated that thing. I’m an avowed bibliophile and geek, and it was just too upper-class Brit.
That poor encyclopedia…
“And what is the use of a book” thought Alice, “without pictures or conversation?” Well Alice, here is your answer.
best thing ya could do with one of them i hope it works better than horse hair
Urge to beat the owner with a very heavy book rising…
And so; the paper encyclopedia was swept into the dustbin of history by… um… an encyclopedia.
This is a tough call. On the one hand, I love books. It also 1) looks difficult to make barring some special equipment, 2) looks like a lousy tool anyway: heavy, clumsy, not very effective, 3) is a volume of Encyclopedia Britannica rather than some lesser encyclopedia. On the other hand, I’ve been to thrift shops and Friends of the Library book warehouses where the old but not classic encyclopedias fill the dumpsters, and it looks like a volume of the more recent version of the Britannica, when it had gone American and (surely not entirely a coincidence) started to lose quality. On the whole: bad idea.
Now what am I going to burn to stay warm?
poor book thats really awful
She blinded me with science! Then cleaned up the evidence with knowledge!! My advice: never break up with an evil genus.
Try doing THAT with Wikipaedia!
That’s Easy, just use a computer instead… however I don’t quite know how you are going to get a computer into a shredder.
That is sad.
unemployment, the internet brings it…
My eyes! I can’t see.
The best part is that if you try to do this with Stephanie Meyer’s “Twilight” books, your floor will be so clean that it will sparkle.
After working in a theatre for a decade (custodian) I learned that books are most certainly NOT sacred. It was tragic to learn. However, art is certainly a worthy cause to which one may sacrifice even an encyclopedia. This artist, especially. Furthermore, this image of an encyclopedia sweeping up the crumbs speaks volumes, as it should.
Also, how can people who live in the mountains think the world is flat?
Wikipedia has made the hard copy encyclopedia obsolete. Moreover, with Wiki, you aren’t restricted relying on facts that are inconvenient to your hypothesis. You can rewrite the world to fit your own limited perceptions and ideas. It’s great! No more will those bloody British tell us what’s what! Besides, if you really want to limit your reality to someone else’s version, I’m sure you can get it online or maybe you can get an old version on 3.5 floppies to go along with your outdated ideology.
. . . but I’m still using the 5-1/4″ floppies. Getting harder anymore to find a machine with a reader for those things.
is it sad that they probably got directions on how to make that atrocity inside the book in the first place?
books are a dying commodity. there are folks who will unfortunately never know what it is like to hold a REAL book in their hands. and it isn’t just this monster who is distroying books.
I’ve seen some of the Mcdonalds in my area use the spine of books as a wall decoration. as well as there is a spot in the Children’s Science Museum in St. Paul made a column out of books. and some of the backs of the books. I’ve noticed that i did not have those in my collection of the Reader’s Digest Condensed books. as well as a few others of my collections I’m missing. I nearly had a freak out in those places.
X_X This is against everything I’ve ever lived for.
Try THAT with your Kindle, you young whippersnappers! And HEY! Get off my lawn!!
Sorry kids, I work at a used book store. Old encyclopedias are so common and unusable that even libraries won’t take them for their support sales. They are no more or less reliable than any original resource website, they are written very quickly by groups of researchers using the same sources as anyone else. If you want one for the handy, quick reference it can provide, cheap (out of date) ones can be found easily, as most of them are headed for the dumpster. This is a very clever piece of recycling.
Am I the only one who’s curious as to how well it works?
wouldnt buying a broom be cheeper
“Anyone Else Die A Little On The Inside Just Now?”
No. I didn’t. And neither should you.
Don’t you know a symbol when you see one? This is saying that books sweep our minds clear of the cobwebs and clutter that keep us from the full enjoyment of life, learning, and bad jokes.
This is what Jimmy Wales does with his free time and pent-up aggression.
This is by an artist, stop being ignorant:
http://www.bookdust.com/
For everyone saying “so what, its a book and we now have the internet.”
We will have the paperless office the same year we have the paperless toilet.
Hell, we were supposed to have flying cars by now. Books and print media are an endangered species, not extinct.
This is awful! Next they’ll be using newspaper to wrap fish and clean windows!
Would be funnyer if it was the Bible! nobody reads that one anyways!
HAHA!!!!
I don’t know . . . kind looks like a library fund raising idea (using discarded books) to me. Library’s are losing funding and every year They discard lots of outdated reference books.
BTW I’m a librarian.
Lets see Google do that!
“Seriously. I demand to know who committed this atrocity! This is a crime against literacy! Where’s my pitch fork? – Ms. Fix-It”
Here ya go, I made you one out of a BOOK!
I’ve read a lot of comments stating encyclopedias become out of date. Hrmm. Well, is the outcome of the Civil War different now than in an encyclopedia from 1975? I think not. It really depends on the information you’re looking up.
As for the photo itself, I’m not surprised people calling it blasphemous. It’s those same people that likely need to read a little more and open their minds and maybe they’d have gotten the meaning.
Hey! At least it’s not a bible!
i should be a bible, bibles=really old lies
not a book that gives us knowledge, like that poor encyclopedia
the “i” in the beginning is supposed a “it”, sorry
sometimes you just need a broom.
Sweeping up the ash heap of history.
I can’t believe all the panties in a bunch over SOMEONE’S PRIVATE PROPERTY being handled in a way that displeases you. Yes, books and encyclopedia are valuable and many people have sentimental attachment to them. But, people- they’re not Bibles or flags or other symbolically sacred articles. It’s a piece of artwork, get it? What’s next- are you going to sneak into people’s homes and fine them for letting their books get dusty? Please don’t hang me because I once stood on a dictionary to change a bulb, and I was too lazy to go to the garage for a stepladder.
Cue “Missing Persons”: What are words for, if no ones talking anymore?