I’ve found Google Books to be a very useful resource in the course of my research for my various musicology classes. There’s a fully viewable (and downloadable!) copy of the Encyclopédie de la musique et dictionnaire du Conservatoire, a reference book printed in 1931 that I have used on multiple occasions. For a recent project dealing with gender and characterization of mythological characters in the operas of Jean-Baptiste Lully and Jean-Phillippe Rameau, I was able to access a Rameau biography, an old copy of Bullfinch’s Mythology, and a number of works by classical authors. It’s certainly much faster than interlibrary loan, and sometimes lets me be lazy and not venture up to the sixth or seventh floor of our library just to check something.

Of course, there are many more fun titles available, too. You can find Alice in Wonderland and Through the Looking-Glass with the original John Tenniel illustrations. If you’re looking for short (and far from comprehensive) summaries of The Bard’s plays, you can read Shakespeare in Limerick Google has recently started adding magazines as well, such as Popular Science and Men’s Health.

As one might expect from Google, by far the best feature of Google Books is its full-text search. Many books — even titles that aren’t viewable online at all — are completely searchable. This has a number of applications. It can help you locate references that you might not find via simple title, subject, or author searches. You can also, as I mentioned above, spot check something before deciding if you need to acquire a physical copy. What prompted me to write this little pæan today is the ability to search a book you already have in front of you.

Earlier this afternoon, I picked up a book I’d requested via interlibrary loan. I turned first, as I usually do with research materials, to the back of the book to consult the index; there wasn’t one. Luckily, the book is available on Google Books, so I was able to search for the terms in which I was interested. The book’s limited preview didn’t allow me to see every page that contained my search terms. But, a wonderful feature of the search tool is that is still gives you page numbers for every result. Google Books can thus act as a digital index for a physical object. Pretty cool, huh?

My trusty iPod turned six this week — not very old for most things, but positively ancient in the world of personal electronics in general and mp3 players in particular. I haven’t actually owned the thing for quite that long — I received it as a birthday gift from my parents in April 2003. But, Chipmunk’s Mac Serial Decoder tells me that my ‘Pod was the 1425th manufactured during the second week of December, 2002.

When I got it, my iPod was tiny compared to other digital music players on the market, especially considering its (then) gargantuan 20GB hard drive. Now of course, it’s twice as thick as the newest hard-drive-based iPods, and has one-fifth the storage space. Mine also doesn’t have the dock connector, instead having a full-size FireWire port on top. It did come with a respectable number of accessories, though. New iPods come in a box with headphones, a charging cable, and a little plastic dock insert. Mine, on the other hand, came with headphones, a wired remote control, a FireWire cable, a mini FireWire adapter, an AC adapter, a case with a belt clip, and a cloth carrying pouch.

Despite its age, it’s still working like a champ. I had to replace the battery a few years ago, which I think cost me all of five dollars. Between when I got my iPod and when I bought the replacement though, battery technology had advanced so much that even now my charges last longer than when the device was brand new. And other than that one fairly simple repair, I’ve never had a problem with it. I’ve been lusting after new models for quite awhile, especially the new Touch (and the iPhone), but it’s kind of hard to justify buying a new one when my old one is still perfectly fine. On the other hand, more people are starting to laugh or ask “what’s that” when they see my iPod, so maybe an upgrade will be in order sometime in the near future.

Sure, it was exciting to watch Kerri Walsh and Misty May-Trainor squash their competition for their second gold medal in as many Olympic games. It was also impressive to see Todd Rogers and the gargantuan Phil Dalhausser fight it out for the gold. And, it was funny to notice that the Brazilian women competed in sports bras that said “BRA 1″ and “BRA 2.” But, why is there so much beach volleyball (and seemingly just as much of its less exciting sibling: indoor volleyball) being broadcast live? It’s been on pretty much every night I’ve watched, and some mornings, as well. Volleyball isn’t exactly a huge spectator sport in the US. Why is it getting so much more coverage than other lesser-known sports? What about sailing, white-water kayaking, or ping pong? Where are weightlifting, tennis, and archery? And most importantly, why is volleyball on now instead of the Modern Pentathlon, which NBC’s site tells me is also happening at the moment?

“What,” you may be asking yourself, “is the Modern Pentathlon?” I asked myself the same question a short while ago while browsing the Olympics page on Wikipedia. It is, in short, the most bad-ass event at the Summer Olympics, and it’s getting no TV coverage. The Modern Pentathlon is not a track and field event, as you might be inclined to guess. Instead, it combines skills from a range of disciplines: épée fencing, pistol shooting, a 200 meter swim, show jumping, and a 3 kilometer run. Yes: it involves running, swimming, jumping over things on horseback, shooting at stuff, and fighting with swords. And instead of these impressive demonstrations of modern-day-knightly skills, I’m watching twelve men in short shorts hit a rubber ball back and forth. What the hell, NBC?

I’m a tea fiend. I drink quite a bit of hot tea, especially during the winter months. Both hot and cold chai are favorites of mine, as well. But summer in the south requires something cool and refreshing, and not as heavy as dairy-laden chai. I’m speaking of course of iced tea.
Although I grew up in Tennessee, I still consider myself a Californian transplant. As such, I’ve never been able to get in to southern-style sweet tea. I’ve tried it with granulated sugar, raw sugar, Equal, Sweet’N Low, and Splenda — all too sweet for me. When ordering iced tea in restaurants, I’ll usually go with the unsweetened variety, which often garners puzzled or derisive glances from my native southern friends (you know who you are). My absolute favorite variety of iced tea, however, is fruit tea.
Fruit tea is, as far as I can tell, another southern creation. I believe that my family was first introduced to it while eating brunch at a local upscale traditional southern restaurant. In its most basic form, fruit tea consists of unsweetened ice tea topped off with some sort of fruit juice — often orange. The juice soften the tartness of the tea without making the drink overly sweet. You must, of course, brew real tea for this to work — that horrible instant dross will not do. The variety of fruit tea that we make at home uses Lipton iced tea blend and Welch’s pre-mixed orange-pineapple-apple juice. The ratio of tea to juice is a matter of personal preference — my dad likes almost a full glass of tea with a little juice on top, while I enjoy a two-thirds to one-third ratio.
This sublime mixture of Camellia sinensis broth and liquid citrus-bromeliad-rosacead extract is extremely refreshing. It really hits the spot after mowing the lawn or a long day at work. Since getting home a week and a half ago, I’ve consumed ridiculous quantities of it. I especially enjoy relaxing in an old-fashioned way, as I’m doing right now: sitting out on the porch in the late afternoon, drinking a tall, cool glass of fruit tea while rocking in a rocking chair, listening to the birds sing, and using my Powerbook and 802.11g WiFi connection to post to my blog. Okay, so maybe “old-fashioned” is a bit of a stretch.
To summarize, in a pop-culture-cliche-I-wanted-to-play-with-Photoshop kind of way: