What is the difference between Reddit and Google+?

The funny point of Google+ is that the project has declined. Google has tried out to build his own social network, but it doesn't worked. A while ago i was active on Google+ and posted something into the groups. The idea was to give the project a chance. Google+ was never recognized as a real social network, mostly because noone was using it. The only active members in the network were spambots who are posting URLs all the day, and even without such artificial traffic the amount of postings in the groups was low.

What is interesting in the Google+ example is, that the design of the website looks very similar to the Reddit page. Similar to Google+ the users has not to be logged in to see the content. And in most boxes some fance images are displayed which generates a large amount of bandwith consumption. The difference is, that Reddit is according to Alexa a top website which is on rank #20 worldwide, while Google+ is no longer included in the top100 Alexa rank. Even if some of the Reddit groups look a bit empty, for example the subreddit group of the Forth community which contains of 1500 members but the amount of postings is around 15 per month. And a Reddit post is nothing more than a title plus a URL and in most cases the title is the same like in the referenced website outside the reddit network.

We can say about Reddit that at least the mainstream groups which are about cat pictures and movie announcement are frequently used and generating a lot of user engagement. So Reddit will not become a second Google+ which is closed without anybody has realized it.

But perhaps we should ask a bit more critical what exactly social networks are about. In the positive sense they are filtering information which are available outside the social network. That means, newspapers, bloggers and youtubers are generating content in the internet and the social network stays on top of the content and is referening to the content. Can this job done by the content plattform itself? Youtube for example has on the right side a navigation bar which displays videos similar to the shown video. If the user likes to see more of the same content he can click through the menu and doesn't need to visit a Google+ with the best videos in the world. So what exactly is the purpose of social networks?

Suppose the orginal websites like Youtube, Wordpress and bookstores doesn't provide some marketing information. If youtube would disable the recommended videos, and Amazon would no longer display similar books, then Social network will become an important place. It would be higher authority which is telling to the user which books they should read and which videos they should watch. Unfurtunatly, most platforms are not only show the content itself, but trying to guide the user to more content on the same website. That means, the user gets a stream of content without leaving Youtube, Amazon or a newspaper website and this makes it hard for social network to generate an extra value.

Suppose somebody has posted a URL to Google+ which directs the user to a wordpress Blog. Why should anybody post a comment in the Google+ group if he can comment the blogpost on the original website? This question is hard to answer. Google+ failed in doing so and this was the reason why they have shut down the social network project.

Let us explain what was not possible on Google+. It was not possible to upload a video, to upload longer texts, to ask a programming question. If the user has done so, the moderators of the group has deleted the post or the post was ignored by the community. The intention of Google+ was not to become a bloghoster, a fileserver or a videohoster, but the idea was to filter information located outside the social network. Most Google+ users have not understood the concept. They were forced to become a member of Google+ but never have done anything within the network. In contrast, the users have very well understood what Youtube is. If somebody had created a nice video, he simply pressed the upload button and the video was online. Such a feature was interesting 5 years ago and it will be in the future. The worldwide users of youtube are using the upload button very often. What they haven't used is the post button in Google+. The reason is, because if they have uploaded their video already, there is no need to explain to the world, what they have done 5 minutes ago. The video is added automatically to their timeline and it is shown in the sidebar of the existing content. And people who have subscribed the user have seen it anyway. That means, youtube was working so great, that no extra social network was needed to aggregate all the content into groups.

Let us describe what the problem with Google+ was. A website contains of a sql-database which is storing the rawdata. And the question is how complicate is the process to produce this data. In case of Wikipedia it is very complicated. Because in the SQL-database the content of an encyclopedia is stored. Creating a single Wikipedia article tooks week. And if the content gets deleted it would take the same time to create the content again. In case of Google+ the amount of work to create the content is smaller. If a typical Google+ groups contains only the URL to external website, that the content is equal to a list of 1000 URLs plus the date. Creating such a list by hand or with a robot is an easy task. Even if the list was deleted, it's possible to create a similar url list within minutes. That means, in the Google+ sql database no important information was stored. And because no relevant data was in the database, the user's have no advantage to stay longer on the website. After a while they have recognized that all the images are the same, and all the URLs are referencing to content outside the network. What the users have done was to follow the links but not going back to the Google+ website. They clicked on a youtube link, liked the video very much and then they remaining on the youtube website because lots of other funny videos are there.

In a discussion it was asked why reddit is different from Google+. https://www.quora.com/How-do-Google+-Communities-compare-to-reddit The answer is, that Reddit has more users, allows nested discussions and Google+ is not searching for duplicate links.

Can movies predict the future?

https://www.reddit.com/r/artificial/comments/bkxy8x/i_robot_vs_back_to_the_future/

Movies aren't able to prepare humans for a robotic revolution. It isn't enough to get the general idea how the future will look like. The only one, who can prepare mankind for exponential growth are universities. It's true, that most students like the cinema, but they are doing lots of other things too, for example reading books and doing experiments. If the aim is to anticipate upcoming developments as early as possible, the more realistic technology over a movie is a computer game. In virtual reality, many textures and subgames are included which provides to the human player a general idea what science is.

This post is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License 

.

Physics is different from computing

The first impression is, that the Physics and the computer science have much in common. A deeper look into the subject shows, that they are about completely different aspects of the world, and the inner working of the scientific community around these subjects is different. Physics can be called without any doubt a scientific discipline. It is teached at universities, has evolved over the year and the progress is done as a challenge between the best ideas. That means, if one physicians has a better idea, he has to prove that this idea works better then the known information before. At the end, all the physicians are unite for one idea and the opposition is called conspiracy theory or non-scientific claim.

Computer science works a bit different. The most remarkable difference is, that computerscience doesn't know any kind of opposition. There is no contrast between accepted theory and discarded theory, instead computer science works like a puzzle in which all the pieces are connected together. In the example of Linux vs. Windows, it is obvious that some kind of aggressive discussion is available, but the opposite direction is also part of computerscience. That means, there are no operating systems inside computer science which can be called unscientific. Every theory or sourcecode is welcome.

This working principle is uncommon for a scientific subject, it is more the work-mode in the human-sciences for example art, history and music. Music is perhaps a good example, in which also piece of music is called music. Even 12 tone music (which sounds very uncommon) is called official music, there are no works available which are non-music.

In a real science subject, it is very easy to contribute a non-sense argument. For example it is possible to invent a new kind of physics or a biology which is in opposition to main-stream biology. Under the term pseudo-science this is done very often and all theories are not backup-ed by academic science. The consequence are endless debates about what is true science and what not. In contrast in the field of computing it is nearly impossible to contradict the mainstream community. Even if somebody tries to brake the existing system and invents something which is complete non-sense his works is never out-of-the-box. Even joke programming language like Brainfuck or Joy are discussed seriously, that means, they are recognized as a correct contribution to the computing science.

Sometimes, computerscience was called an alchemy. This implies that in the future, it will become perhaps a science. I would argue, that computer science was never invented as science, it was invented as art. That means, it will stay on the same level like music or literature, that means it is not possible to decide which is part of computing and which is non-sense.

How could it be, that the obscure composition of Arnold Schönberg doesn't violate the music-science? Because music never was invented as a science. All musicians are composing their work from scratch, that means there is nothing like a mainstream theory about music. A piece of work can't be right, it has only an author and a date in which the work was published. In contrast, a real science like physics can be right or wrong. It is possible to teach the right physics or the wrong one, which isn't accepted by anyone. Identifying the opposite is a fundamental element of the university discussion. All the researchers are talking about the question if a theory is scientific or not. And if the researchers are great they are very conservative, which means they are calling nearly everything what is new non-scientific because it broke the rules. On a higher abstraction this is called convergent thinking. Scientific progress has to do with it, while arts works with divergent thinking which means to be open in any direction.

The 80s are a special decade ...

On the first look, the 1980s looks similar to other periods in the history of music, for example the 1990s, the 1960s and so on. But there is something which is different, the 1980s are not only a decade, it was a century. The development until the 1980s can be called 20th century. It started in the year 1900 and ended in 1980. There overall elements are car manufacturing, mass production, airplanes and the railroad. With the year 1980s this centuray has ended, and something new started, called information technology. Their main idea was the microchip, namely computers, CD-ROM, television, VHS videocassette and so on. The 1980s later evolved into the internet revolution which includes youtube, the World Wide web, WIkipedia and Google, but it all started in the 1980s with inventions like the Apple II and the IBM PC. It was the first time, that no longer industrial products like cars but information products like Movies, music and software became important. Most of the inventions of the 1980s like the Commodore 64, the Walkman or LISP workstations are today no longer relevant. They are replaced by something which is more powerful. But, in the 1980s it was totally new. That means, the Commodore 64 didn't replaced a homecomputer before, it was the first homecomputer ever.

Some people belief that the year 2018 is equal to the 80s and they are right. Everything feels like the same, only in details an improved is there. The reason is, that the 1980s didn't only start a new decade but it started the 21th century. According to a nominal definition the 21th century begins in the year 2000, but the 1980s looks very equal. So it makes sense to define the 1980s as the first decade of the 21th century. And today in the year 2018 we are living in the same century. That means, it is a post-industrial world full of computers, microchips, music and software. It is unclear how long this century will take, perhaps it will run until the year 2100 or later. Nobody knows what the future will bring. But what is a mistake is to compare the 1980s with the 1970s. There is major contrast between both. The 1970s can be seen like the 1960s and the 1950s as a classical example for the 20th century which was dominated by industrial production, cars and electric current. It is a very modern century with electric light, railroads and refrigerators but it's not the 1980s. That means, the Compact Disc wasn't invented, the walkman too, and computers are not a consumer product yet. If the youth want's to see a movie they will go to a car-cinema and not to a video rental store. And most television stations submitting their program in black/white without stereo sound. MTV wasn't invented yet, and Tetris is unknown. This will become possible only in the 1980s.

The 1990s

Somebody may argue, that the 1980s wasn't great and the 1990s had produced much better cultural artifacts. And indeed, the 1990s are about Windows 95, better popmusic (for example Eurodance), and the new invented DVDs player had a better quality then the VHS Cassettes of the 1980s. But a more objective look into the details shows, that the 1990s are only an improvement of the 1980's. They didn't invented new thinks, they only modified existing patterns. The homecomputers gets more memory, the music become more electronic and the movies contains better special effects. The difference between the 1990s and the 1980s are much smaller then the difference between the 1980s and the 1970s. The 1990s are only the second decade of the 21th century. It can be called an extension of the 80s.

The same is true for the 2000s and the 2010s. In all these cases, the technology was improved but not in a sense that one of these decaded started a new century which is different from the information revolution.

Creating a GUI with C++, gtkmm and glade

The first impression for the beginner is, that C++ is very complicated if the aim is to create GUI application. Other languages like C# and Java seems to be more comfortable. The major problem is not the language itself, but it is a lack of documentation. I've searched a bit in the internet to find a good documention, but it seems very complicated. Most tutorials about gtkmm are about manually creating the buttons in the sourcecode which is outdated. What today's programmers want is a GUI tool like glade. But how to use glade together with C++? That is unclear, I didn't find a good documentation for that problem, but it seems, that the C community is better informed. Under the URL https://prognotes.net/2015/06/gtk-3-c-program-using-glade-3/ is a nice tutorial given which shows a hello world example which contains of C sourcecode together with the glade editor. I've modified the code a bit for C++ needs and here is my hello world example:

// Glade gui with gtkmm
// g++ -std=c++14 `pkg-config --cflags --libs gtkmm-3.0`main.cpp
// https://prognotes.net/2015/06/gtk-3-c-program-using-glade-3/

#include iostream
#include gtkmm.h
int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{ 
  gtk_init(&argc, &argv);
  GtkBuilder *builder = gtk_builder_new(); 
  gtk_builder_add_from_file (builder, "gui.glade", NULL);  
  GtkWidget *window = GTK_WIDGET(gtk_builder_get_object(builder, "mainwindow")); // from XML file
  gtk_builder_connect_signals(builder, NULL);
  g_object_unref(builder);
  gtk_widget_show(window);                
  gtk_main();

  return 0; 
}

The basic idea is to use the Glade gui tool for drag and drop the window and save the XML file as “gui.glade”. Then in the C++ program this XML gets loaded and become visible on the screen. It seems to be a common idea, but it is very hard to find tutorials for such a simple task.

Like I mentioned above in the introduction, the problem is not C++, glade or gtkmm. With these tools everything is fine. The resulting “a.out” application works stable, and the ecosystem is mature. The problem is a lack of documentation. Most programmers are only familiar with Windows GUI system, and here C# replaced the previous C++ entirely. While in contrast under Linux, most developers are only programming textbased-commandline tools and have no need for a nice looking GUI.

I strongly believe, that this will not be the last tutorial for combining glade with C++. Perhaps in the future some extension become possible, for example a more advanced GUI application which is more then a simple hello world example. But for this time, this tutorial is over.

Library Privatization works

The first idea in the debate about the future of libraries might be to declare public libraries as obsolete because Google can deliver much more content then outdated conventional libraries. From the first perspective this is true, but this argument will be not recognized as a valid contribution from the library itself. So there are major doubts, that the idea of “libraries are obsolete” will convince a huge amount of people, especially if we are mention that the number of visitors the classical library has isn't so bad, as it seems.

The better approach to discuss the future of library is a bit tricky. It is called privatization, and this time the idea is welcomed by everyone. The libraries itself see privatisation as the next logical steps, the public asks for the same thing, and potential competitor of libraries like Google are also fans of this idea. The concept itself is easy. Instead of reducing the tax money to the library, instead of closing library and make all digital we let all untouched and change only the legal structure of today's public library. They are no longer part of the government or the church, but will be converted into a stockmarket listed company. What the library are doing with their new role is up to themself. They can ask their customers for money, they can ask the government for money. It is natural that the government will spend a lot of taxpayer money into the new listed library company, because of it's traditional strong relationship. The new thing is, that from now on both are separated. That means, libraries have to compete in a market like a telecom company or like Walmart.

In my opinion there is a market for borrowing printed books, The problem in the past was, that public libraries have killed this market and no other company was able to earn money in that market. This has to be changed. I don't think that Europe or Asia will make the first step in this direction. No the mother in capitalism is the United states, and here is the right place for library privatization. If this works, other countries will follow.

I don't think that it is realistic to think about a disappearing library. Books, DVDs and a place to read them will be needed at least for the next 50 years. So long will it takes, that the Internet is fully accepted. On the other hand it makes no sense, to see a library as part of the government or the church. It is more like a business like a bakery or a restaurant. And most employees of libraries see themself also as employess and not as something else. A library has customers, gets money, and provides services. So it is logical to formalize this behavior with the correct legal status.

Todays comparison between Google and libraries isn't fair. Google is a stockmarket company and deals with electronic information, while the library is not a company and is about printed books. To get the challenge fair it is important to let fight one company against another company. To compare a library company with a search engine company. A possible metric is the return on investment, the number of employees and so on.

Libraries are a commercial book borrowing service

Some outlooks into the libraries future are recognizing that the internet is there and that the libraries need to find an answer. What they doesn't aware of it is, that other market players are already there which have created business around distribution of information. Sometimes the battle is shortened to libraries vs google, but in reality the battle is between Nasdaq-100 vs libraries. Let us take a look into some coperations listed at the tech oriented stockexchange:

• Activision (computergames)
• Adobe (PDF format)
• Alphabet (Google)
• Amazon.com (books)
• Apple (ipad)
• Baidu (search engine)
• Cisco (router)
• comcast (fiber optic cable)
• Intel (CPUs)
• Microsoft (operating system)
• netflix (videos)
• paypal (paying service)
• t-mobile (telephone provider)

What does have all these companies to do with libraries? Very much, because they are providing the infrastructure for getting access to printed books, electronic books, films, computergames and so on. They are providing hardware devices like PC and smartphones, they are proving telephone cables and they are writing software. It is not only a battle between google vs. libraries, that war is much broader. Are traditional libraries able to compete with the Nasdaq-100 list? Can they provide better information, and give better advice to the customers then all the companies on the list? The answer is simple: nope. The interesting fact is, that the libraries itself didn't understand this. They think, that libraries have a future because their history goes over 500 years back. They can simply not imagine, what the internet is.

The interesting information is, that libraries not only will disappear. Because the demand for information, books and movies will raise in the future, and also the demand for manual advice, structure and a place for talking about it. But, all the workforce will no longer be active within the classical library, but within one of the NASDAQ-100 companies. I would guess, that even in 20 years there will be a market for printed books.. But all the infrastructure around this won't be handled by libraries but by suppliers like Amazon, paypal and Microsoft. These companies are not digital under any circumstances, they will process printed books, but the business workflow will bypass the library, that means apart from Nasdaq-100 companies there will be no need for extra service providers.

Sometimes the internet is described as a virtual space. But in reality it is the combination of the employees and the customers of the Nasdaq-100 companies. Google for example, has 1 billion customers who are visiting every day the search engine, and Intel has lots of engineering how are developing new microprocessors. But what is the role of libraries? What service they have to offer? Right, they have nothing to offer, and they have no customers. The only thing what libraries provide today is a broken story about their future role which isn't realistic and should mainly protect the library themself against all the people who know it better how to provide information, media, entertainment and education. The libraries sees themself as a protection against the evil google company. That is nonsense. Google never had a monopol in information distribution, it is only one company in the NASDAQ-100 list and competes with all the others. The libraries are the danger for society, because they acquire too much money and provide no values.

Today's library are very equal to a religions institution. They are not listed at the stockexchange but earn a huge amount of money. They own lots of building and have a huge amount of workers, but they are obsolete for the society. The only reason why libraries exists today is because they were important in the past and spread fear that something evil will happen, if they get lost.

Ending the customer relationship with one of the NASDAQ-100 companies is easy. All what the customer has to do sending a letter to Apple and explain that from now on, he will no longer use Apple iMac devices but HP workstation because they costs less. From now on the relationship between Apple and the customer is over. But how can we end the relationship with the library-industrial-complex? Sending a letter to the library that we do not need their service doesn't help. Because the libraries doesn't see themself as a company who offers a service for money, but the library think they are part of the society and they are open for everyone. That means, from a technical point it is not possible to quit the relationship. The library owns the people for lifelong like the catholic church.

My prediction is, that the libraries will have a future, because of this lifelong membership. The customers are not in the position to end the library account, nor they are able to reduce the amount of tax-money they have to spend to the library-complex. At first, most don't care, but in 10 years this will become a major problem. Going bancrupt for a NASDAQ-100 company is part the business. Adobe knows, that in one day, their lifespan is over, because something was invented which is better then the PDF format. But the library has no exist strategy. There is simply no exit button for the library, they are created for eternity in mind. And this is dangerous if the underlying idea (printed books) becomes outdated.

The first important step is to talk about library privatization. That means, to separate between library and the church, between libraries and the government. That means, future libraries have to become financial independent from church and government as a huge institution financed by it's own. And then, it will become much easier to talk about adjustments and shrinking.

As far as i know, no country worldwide has made this step. In all nations, libraries are from a legal perspective part of the government and the church. They are managed like a public university which means, they don't have customers. The first step would be, to make users of the library a customer. That means, that people who are visiting the library have to pay for it. And only the users but nobody else.

The first software-crisis is solved

Since the 1970s the term software crisis was used to describe a deficit in modern system software. Artifacts like operating systems, compilers, and graphic software were not available in the 1970s and the 1980s. A short look into mainstream journals from that area shows, that each new developed program and each operating system was welcome because the people were happy, if any software was available. The reason why minimalic operating systems like MS-DOS were at the beginning such a great success has to do, that a simple 3.5 inch floppy disc which can boot a PC was seen at the eight world wonder. To understand the situation better we must go back in the 1970s. In that area, no micocomputer like the Apple ii available, no system software and especially no software which could connect computers over the internet. The problem was, that in that area even computer experts were very bad in coding. If they had developed in assembly language a small text editor they have seen themself as god like programmers.

Early databases in the 1980's were at the same time extreme minimalistic but costs a huge amount of money. That means, the end user paid 10000 US$ and get a product with an upper memory limit of 20 kilobyte and no opportunity to store fulltext data in the software.

To summarize the software crisis from an economical perspective we can say, that hardware and software was simply to expensive. Programming a simple 10 kb application was done as a million US$ project and a simple memory extender cost more then an airplane. The perhaps most impressive development was, that the software crisis was at one time in history done. I would guess, that the mid 1990s can be seen as the turning point, because since then microcomputer were available for small prices and software to run them also. And the software industry has increased their productivity dramatically. Many researchers were not only interested to write a computer program, but they discussed about how to write programs more easily. As a consequence new programming languages like C, new concepts like object-oriented programming and multi-tasking operating systems were invented. This advanced technology was called in the area of it's invention 5th generation workstation computer and can be dated back at the late 1980s. Such computersystems looked very familiar to what is used even today. And programmer could write software on that machines without much effort.

The best invention to solve the software crisis was perhaps the GNU Open Source project. The main idea was, to create all the software which was available again but leave out the pricetag. At first time not only advanced C++ compilers and network ready operating systems were available but thanks Linus Torvalds such software was given away for free. This made the internet revolution possible and fired a development viewed backwards as dot com bubble.

The original problems called software crisis can be called solved. That means, the industry found together with academic researcher an answer to the challenge. If today somebody isn't able to find a compiler or an operating system to boot up his computer it is not a problem of the hardware or the software industry, but has different reasons. That means, cheap hardware and software for free is available and waits for everybody who is interested to learn.

The world is not very exciting if no crisis is there. The first problem was solved, but another problem is open. This time it is unclear how to fix it. The new problem has nothing to do with system software for booting computers, but with AI related software. That are packages for controlling robots, powering image recognition or realizing search engines. Such AI Related software isn't available, and like in the 1970s before, any small attempt in writing such a software is celebrated as the eight world wonder. If somebody in the world is able to program a walking robot (for example Boston dynamics) he will get applause from million or even billion users worldwide, because no other company can do so. That means, the knowledge of how to program robots is not available in the public domain, their costs are high.

I have no idea, how to fix the second crisis. It is way more difficult to program a robot, then to program a compiler for the C programming language. How to program a fast compiler is written in many books. And many people know how to do it. They are talking about the subject at stackoverflow or on their blog. And many examples are available at github. But nobody knows how to program a robot. The total number of people how is able to install the ROS software is smaller then 30. That are the employees at Willow Garage how have developed the tool, and they didn't documented their work. The same is true for specialized deeplearning hardware. It is unclear how the chips are manufactured or what the tensorflow software is doing really with the resources.

Is the AI software crisis really there or is it only an invention of the media? If somebody isn't interested in AI he see perhaps no problem. Because normal computer software is available and is working great. If computing is equal to writing a texteditor in C++ or a Linux hardware driver for controlling a wlan card, then no crisis is there. But some visions goes into a direction that computers are perhaps able to controll robots and then it would be nice to experience how to program them. If somebody is interested in such problems, he will notice the second software crisis. He will recognize that the given papers today are too complicated and that the amount of information of is too low. And perhaps he will recognize that his own skills are too weak to program AI related software. Perhaps he has tried to program a simple Pacman game AI which should simply avoid the ghosts and he fails. And then he has a problem, because he is powerless in front of his computer.

The shared experience of beginners in AI is, that they have too little knowledge to be successful. They have tried out simple AI puzzles, failed with the implementation and give up. They know, that AI is perhaps possible, but not by themself and not in their lifespan. This feeling of disillusion is very common for today's computer generation. It isn't a failure of the individual but from larger circles. It is unclear right now how to solve the problem. Perhaps it would be enough to bring Open Access forward, so that information about AI related topic will become easier available. Is this enough? Papers are available today, but they are to complicated and sometimes the authors have also no idea about the subject. The problems goes deeper. The main problem is, that AI was never before researched in the human history. IT is something which wasn't available in the past. And there are no methodologies available how to understand the subject or finding out new things.

Video rental stores as a template for future libraries

Video rental stores are something from the past. Today, most companies are under pressure, because Netflix and Amazon can stream much more movies and are cheaper. But let us ignore this new development and describe the basic idea behind a classical video rental store. They were available from the 1980s until 2010. They boom period was together with the VHS format. The most interesting aspect in video rental stores was, that the medium was a physical one. A VHS cassette is something different from the internet, it was some kind of medium before the internet was invented.

The use case for the customer is very similar to a visit in the public library. He goes physical to the video rental store. Brings older cassettes back and searches for new films. They he checks out at the desk and leaves the store. So nice so good, the most interesting aspect is, that behind such a store a business model is there. That means, the owner of the store gets payed by the customer. And this is the difference to a public library, in which no such business model is there. The other aspects like the physical medium and the physical location are the same.

Video rental stores are a great invention. They help to provide access to information for all kind of people. And the business model can be transferred to today's libraries. Like in a videostore the customer come in, bring their old books back and searching for new one. Like in a library, the customer are prefering a physical store over the internet and are interested in printed books but not in digital pdf versions. They are doing so, because they love books made of paper with high resolution graphics and they hate the PDF format, because this can't be read at the beach.

As far as i know, most public library have also some DVDs and audio-cd available which can be borrowed for some days. The DVDs are the same like the titles in the video rental store, for example Rambo I–III, the A-Team or Flashdance. The difference is, that the public library don't want to be a commercial business but a democratic institution. Why? Is the Rambo I DVD from the public library so much better then the same DVD from a small video rental shop in the city? Isn't it true, that public library are buying the CD-Roms and books from a commercial publisher which is the same who is delivering the goods to barnes & noble or Amazon?