“local area network is a computer network that interconnects computers in a limited area such as a home, school, computer lab, or office building.”
WAN = Wide area network
LANs have higher data-transfer rates, a smaller geographic area, and don’t need telecommunication lines than WANs. (LANs can use Ethernet and Wi-Fi to connect).
What I am still confused about is – is a LAN something that allows multiple computers to connect to the same internet, or is it something needed with or without the internet factor? The definition says it is a “computer network.” When I think of a networked computer – I think about the computers I have at work – where 4 computers are connected to one server, and I can (from the main computer) access the files from all of the computers in that network. This doesn’t have anything to do with internet – so how is LAN related?
The description of a computer network in the second Wikipedia article doesn’t really clarify this question for me. It defines a network as “a collection of hardware components and computers interconnected by communication channels…” So, in my case (above), the communication channels are wires that work with or without internet. But, say I remote over to the other server, then I am using the internet to do the same thing. My understanding based on the above is that a network doesn’t require the internet as a communication channel, but it can be used in different ways if the internet is used as a channel of communication. So, does LAN refer to only the type of computer network that is using internet as a communication channel?
Management of RFID in Libraries
By: Karen Coyle
RFID = radio frequency identifier
RFID is like a barcode that is read w/an electromagnetic field. It carries more info than barcodes and doesn’t have to visible to be read (an can be embedded in an item).
Hundreds of different RFID products on the market – EZ tags, card keys, animal tracking chips, etc.
In libraries, RFID can be used for inventory purposes, and for circulation and security.
-Ex “checked-in” vs “checked out” state of a book going through security gate.
As with most library security measures, RFID would only be a “social deterrent” as opposed to an actual preventative measure. The real value is in the fact that one RFID tag can be used for many different purposes (and the security isn’t any worse than any other measure).
I think anything that lessens the need for staff to do dull tasks like running a circulation desk is probably something to consider. I also realize that not everyone would consider this task “dull,” and that there is an opportunity present for someone who wants a low-stress job in circulation. At the same time, I think in this day and age having staff replaced by technology is inevitable to some extent. I don’t think that means fire your circulation staff, but it would give them an opportunity to utilize other skills and spend some time doing other things (that are also super important and perhaps not replaceable by technology). RFID seems to be a fairly cost-effective technology, and also seems to inspire new ideas about what patrons value and how staff time is best spent.
No comments:
Post a Comment