A $2 photo from a California junk shop is the ‘holy grail of Western Americana’
washingtonpost.com
washingtonpost.com
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxila [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nalanda#Decline_and_end
The other, brighter side of this coin is the many remarkable rediscovery stories, like that of the Archimedes palimpsest [3] in the 1990s and Indian statesman Chanakya's 3rd century BCE manuscript 'Arthashastra' [4] in the 1900s.
[3] http://www.archimedespalimpsest.org/ [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthashastra
Many of the documents found at Nag Hammadi were burned before anyone read them. Among the unburned was a copy of Plato's Republic (not an original, but still).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nag_Hammadi_library
Reading these makes me wonder what other interesting written interpretations of various religious figures were burned out of existence.
When you buy enough "junk" that just looks old and or unique you'll eventually hit jackpot, I'm really not sure that the guy who bought the picture knew exactly it's value or it's historical significance, he just might had enough experience to estimate that it's more likely than not worth more than 2$ and got really really lucky.
An original old-western picture could probably get more than 2$ on Ebay and the likes as just decorative art so even without it's historical significance it could've been purchased as an "investment".
1) We end up with a junk piece of furniture that sits in our garage for months while she tries to either sell it for a few bucks or makes a run back to the thrift store to drop it off (majority of the time)
or
2) She ends up finding a piece worth hundreds (sometimes thousands) that make it all worth it. She recently found a Paul McCobb table she restored and sold for 700 dollars that she bought for $15 (small % of the time but worth it)
Kinda sounds a bit like venture capital...
"But does it scale?" :-)
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c2/Billy_th...
I'm not anything like an expert, but looking at the enlarged portion, he was the one who came to mind.
As well, the article mentioned that this is the first photo of him with some of his known gang members. The man to his left is quite clear, and therefore if they can identify him as an associate of Billy The Kid, perhaps that gave them more reason to suspect it was Billy.
As for the associate, my sister thought it looked liked two boys in the midst of arguing over rules and cheating in the way that older and younger brothers do...
http://www.truewestmagazine.com/billy-the-kid-experts-weigh-...
Apparently four people in the photo have also been identified as those known to associate with Billy the Kid, including Sally Chisum. Her diary seems to confirm this event taking place - which was a cattle drive and the wedding of Charlie Bowdre (on the horse).
So details of the verification process are being withheld in order the make the documentary more appealing.
I do wonder how digital archiving will work in the future. Hopefully something better than "the archive.org volunteers decided to archive it"
The best bet would be the Library of Congress.
User-Agent: *
Disallow: /
Many. But, more in the way of actively and enthusiastically supporting the ability to wipe the archive this way than, you know, being concerned that it is a problem.
Digital storage is far more fragile than many physical storage mediums, digital data in many cases might also be indistinguishable from random data in such cases where it have been heavily encoded, encrypted, or the mata-data was lost.
Time capsules are now becoming more and more important (including us sending one to Mars) because if we blow ourselves up or encounter a calamity that will erase much of modern technology we will lose more data in that instant than all the data lost to history before that.
Most modern storage media will not last a century even under good conditions, yet alone under conditions that we've found many historical manuscripts and objects of significance so it's quite important for us to develop a high-density, long term media which can store current information in ways that will be fairly simple to access, micro-film was a good candidate at one time but the information density was too small, so allot of people are working on more high density storage media including crystals, and even encoding allot of information into DNA, if you can turn an entire forest into a time capsule you might be able to preserve knowledge for a very very long time.
I do like the idea that the information would be self-propagating, but who'd think to look in the DNA of some trees?
The idea is just to have some way to ensure that enough information survives in persistent forms, you can store "important" (for scientific advancement) stuff in various types of media which is progressively harder to access and gets more and more dense, and eventually store everything and it's mother in DNA or anything similar.
As things go if in 50 years we lose Google, Wikipedia, Facebook and Amazon/Kindle we might be on our way back to the stoneage.
[0] - the story of Biblical Deluge tells that part of the reason God had to sink the planet is that because angels descended from heaven and started breeding with people and corrupting them. If one believes in that story and is particularly imaginative, one had to ask just what level of technology did we have back then, after being 'corrupted' by what would be aliens?
Basically modern humans and neanderthals were bred by a more advanced and ancient form of humans (physically similar to AMH) we were all designed to have a naturally occurring fractal antennas in our brains that allowed them to mind control us to be used as slave/servants (humans) and soldiers (neanderthals). Some humans had a mutation (either naturally occurring, or a case of sleeping with the help which was also implied in the game, basically seraphim doing earthling hot chicks > flood recap) that made them immune to the mind control tech. There was a rebellion and a catastrophe (solar eruption) the ancients mostly have died out, some organizations know about them and some parts of the mind control tech have survived (pieces of eden in the game). The templars are after that tech to control the entire world, the assassins want to stop them.
PSA: That's pretty much spoiler free you can probably find a whole recap of the premise online.
Wait what?! Ok, my mind is officially blown here. Thanks for telling me that, I'll check it out.
I think you're confusing reason with Star Trek. Elaborate, repeating patterns can emerge from any number of random or chaotic processes, that doesn't mean an intelligence tried to encode something in it.
And even if it were plausible, given the amount of DNA we've studied by now, the lack of any obvious discoveries of messages from aliens or our ancient ancestors would suggest that it's not that effective as a storage medium for arbitrary messages.
I still sometimes forget that on HN, humour tags are obligatory. ;).
BTW. You mentioned Star Trek, actually that (IMO) pretty ridiculous episode with holographic messages hidden in DNA was on my mind when I wrote the original comment...
There was also a species that had a galaxy-wide empire and used portals instead of starships to get around that only got mentioned once or twice, despite apparently being able to move stars around. And the Dyson sphere could (should) have been it's own series.
The demise of Iconians always felt far-fetched to me. They had a portal network spanning a galaxy that could even be used to stage invasions at unexpecting opponents, and yet the whole empire collapsed down after a single supernova?
A TNG spin-off about the Dyson sphere would be uber-cool. I'd love that.
Ahem. Babylon 5. ;)
The first season was OK given it's budget but when the studio kicked out Wolfe it turned into utter garbage.
Like most syndicated show it pretty much was run into the ground by the networks, less story, more self confined episodes that can be picked up by the average Joe Dumb while flipping channels, and constant budget cuts.
They've spent like 75% of their CGI budget for the 1st season on the Andromeda model for the pilot episode which resulted in pretty much every space battle after it being a scene for scene recut of the 3rd episode from different angles.
I would not recommend that show to anyone.
(Edit after seeing T's responses - I was close!)
I've read a lot of SF and can assure that science is not required for the genre.
"A Scanner Darkly" comes to mind, where SF elements were added to the story to make it SF, but play little role in the story.
Silverber's Majipoor series has technology, but it's so ancient and unused it might as well be fantasy. Things like the ability to send dreams are nominally done by machine, as are many of the things in Babylon 5.
Farmer's Tiers series is another SF example where the super advanced science - the ability to create artificially-constructed universes, for example - are explained as science, but the science element do little to advance the story.
And i don't consider A Scanner Darkly to be pure scifi, just like most of Dick's other works, it's fiction for sure but not necessarily scientific.
For example, "Star Wars" won the Hugo for 'Best Dramatic Presentation' in 1978 so right there it's obvious that a lot of people - and those who are more identifiable and influential than your bland 'many people' - classify it as science fiction.
(Bear in mind that "The Force" or an equivalent has long been a thread in SF. Think of the mental powers of the Lensmen, or precognition in 'Dune', or telekinesis in 'Stranger in a Strange Land'. You cannot handwave it way as "fantasy" without throwing out a lot of other SF.)
I also gave two other examples of mainstream science fiction which are no less fantastical than Babylon V. To that list I'll add Pellucidar.
What is the science driving "Tunnel in the Sky"? A magic device that can slow time and allows space warp. What of the rest qualifies as 'scientific' which makes it notably "science fiction" instead of simply "fiction"?
What is the science behind "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy"?
Or "The Dispossessed"? The main characters live on a moon, the primary is also inhabited, there is occasional radio and rocket connection between the two, and there's a computer that helps with resource planning. None of those details drive the plot.
For that matter, is there any TV series you think should be called "science fiction"? What actual SF do you think deserves being called SF? I gave names. Now it's your turn.
Science Fiction's classical definition is a work of fiction that uses science as a story telling device to explore ideas.
I don't want to be a gatekeeper to anything, mainly because it's just as presumptuous of me to do that as the opinions you've presented.
There are quite allot of categories in speculative fiction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speculative_fiction including Science Fantasy ,and Comic Science Fiction which is where i would put Douglas Adam's work in there.
The more finite definition of a work is really dependent on the setting, story telling device used and interpretation.
A tunnel in the sky is a very good example of works that can be classified as Science Fantasy a genre that it's author Robert Heinlein was quite instrumental in it's creation.
I don't disagree that others have that opinion about Star Wars. That's besides the point. You claim is that Babylon 5 is not part of science fiction. You think that the allusion to what other people think about Star Wars is relevant to your claim. But as you must well know, that question of "is Star Wars really science fiction" is old and well-worn (eg. http://pop-verse.com/2014/12/10/is-star-wars-science-fiction... ).
It is therefore a poor tool to use to answer the question of 'is Babylon 5 science fiction?'. My objection was to this use, not that others believe it to be fantasy.
This concept of "speculative fiction" as an encompassing term is a perfectly reasonable one to have. However, it does not address the question 'is Babylon 5 science fiction?'.
You can place Hitchhiker's Guide into "Comic Science Fiction", but note that "Science Fiction" is in the name. Granted, astronomers say that a dwarf planet isn't a planet, but a dwarf star is a star, so it's not always possible to infer an is-a relationship in a name, but so far it looks like Hitchhiker's Guide is part of science fiction.
You give what you say is the "classical definition" of 'a work of fiction that uses science as a story telling device to explore ideas'.
As you must surely know, there is no such classical definition, and "its exact definition remains a contested question among both scholars and devotees." (Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_science_fiction and reflective of my understanding.) Furthermore, there's an entire section in Wikipedia on just that topic, at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_science_fiction , many of which are not limited to your 'science as a story' definition.
I can assume your definition for argument's sake, but you still haven't answered the question of which TV series you think is actually science fiction under your definition, nor have you given any books.
This unwillingness to state examples is why I'm getting gatekeeper vibes from you. (A gatekeeper who is used to shutting people down for using the wrong terms is often one who does not want to stick a neck out for worry that it will in turn be cut down.)
Do note that the "science fantasy" link you give says the term "has never been clearly defined". The Heinlein example of 'Magic, Inc.' has many of the tropes of outright fantasy. I would consider "Glory Road" a better example for this category, with mixed fantasy and science elements. Indeed, if you look in the talk you'll see a raging discussion on just that point. In any case, 'Tunnel in the Sky' has no fantasy elements, so cannot fit into this category.
But I understand why this idea comes up. Put yourself in the shoes of the "junk shop" (from article) owner or flea market vendor. We're not talking about a high-end antique store. The seller is likely not wealthy. They're going to be devastated that they let this opportunity slip through their fingers.
A tip or kickback of, say, $25,000 would only be 0.5% of your pre-tax gains, but it would likely be a significant windfall for them, let them pay off some debt or take that vacation they've always wanted to. It's a nice gesture and would help take the edge off that anger and regret they'll inevitably feel for the rest of their life.
However, before I did that, I would consult a lawyer. On the one hand, sharing a small piece of the pie with them might give them something to lose and make it less likely they'd bring a frivolous but possibly expensive-for-you lawsuit against you – by an attorney who's working on commission and betting that you'll settle. On the other hand, giving them a cut might open the door for some line of reasoning or set some precedent that they're legally entitled to a portion of the proceeds. I don't know. That's why I'd consult a lawyer. :)
I'm not suggesting any sort of obligation towards the junk shop; it's an interesting thought exercise of where one draws the line when there's a knowledge gap between buyer and seller, particularly one involving six orders of magnitude difference in value.
Tipping dealers in UK casinos is actually forbidden by the 'Gaming Board' (gambling commission) to discourage "cheating" since they believe that if dealers might get a cut of the winnings they might be inclined to stack the odds in the player's favor.
Are you sure about this? I've played poker in UK casinos where tipping was very common
"Licence condition 10.1.1 Tipping – personal licence holders All non-remote casino operating licences 1 Licensees must only permit tipping of staff holding personal licences where a tronc system is operated; that is to say, where all tips are pooled and distributed amongst the employees concerned. A separate tronc may be operated for each of a number of categories of licensed staff."
http://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/pdf/Latest-LCCP-and-Ext...
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/nimmanual/nim02941.htm
Edit:
It's seems that all tipping was universally disallowed until 2005 (haven't been in a UK casino for about 10 years)
"In the rest of the world, tipping the dealer for success is the norm. In Britain it has become legal (on implementation of the 2005 Gaming Act) and now it is acceptable. It is still however not as commonplace as in other places in Europe or America."
Beyond that it's subject to the 2005 gaming act and the tornc and personal license holders schemes.
Sourse: German in a rural and traditional area
Lottery tickets are not a parallel, given that it's luck of the draw that determines the value of the ticket. At the time of purchase, the ticket is worth exactly the price of the paper it's printed on.
Here's a better, less extreme but real example. I just purchased a mandolin from a seller of vintage guitars. Paid $750, and were I to be patient I could probably get $1200 out of it. I have no plans to sell it, as I bought it to play, but let's supposed six months down the road I do sell it. Do I send a spiff back to Jimmy's Vintage Guitars? Nope. Jimmy admittedly doesn't know jack about mandolins. Jimmy didn't even get the model right, even though sixty seconds on Google would tell you the one easily-seen distinguishing feature that says it's a Gibson A-50 and not an A-40. I don't feel bad for Jimmy, because if he's going to take stuff to sell, he should know what he's selling because it's his business. Jimmy better have a big pile of "Vintage Instruments Value" books on the shelf, and know how to use the internet. I also assume that whether he obtained by trade or cash, he felt he got an acceptable deal when he took the instrument. So even though I got a bargain, Jimmy came out okay, too.
Now, I'm not a total bastard. Were I to find, say, a 1923 Gibson F5 at a yard sale for $50, I'd give the person $500. Two reasons for that: such an instrument is worth several thousand dollars even in rough shape, and I don't expect a person selling Grandpa's mandolin at a yard sale to have any idea of its value. They're not in the vintage instrument business, they shouldn't be punished (too much) for not knowing what they're selling. They get 10x what they were asking, and I still get a steal, everyone goes home very happy.
In the end, someone got lucky and it wasn't the person that sold the picture. I might very well kick back a little to the original seller, but I most certainly wouldn't feel obligated to do so.
1. oh that picture looks nice, i'll buy it, and then have it appraised thinking it might be worth a couple hundred bucks
2. Is that billy the kid? this could be really valuable, let me see if i can get it for a song
"The loss of numerous leaves from trees is not uncommon in New Mexico in June." -- http://aces.nmsu.edu/ces/yard/1997/063097.html
It's consistently amazing how incredibly specialized our modern economy is.