Charles Darwin notebooks lost and assumed stolen
bbc.co.uk
bbc.co.uk
University of Cambridge has a bit more on their "appeal" site (https://www.cam.ac.uk/stories/DarwinAppeal)
The digitized notebooks are available:
[1] https://cudl.lib.cam.ac.uk/view/MS-DAR-00121/1
[2] https://cudl.lib.cam.ac.uk/view/MS-DAR-00122/1
Also, yesterday was the anniversary of the release of On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life on November 24, 1859.
Though I say for really important works, having a physical copy in addition to the digital one is a must. Digital data is easy to copy — and easy to lose. And bit rot is a thing.
What other discoveries might be unpredictable right now? For example, some new development might tell us two things were made in the same place and time, leading to discovery by inference, or something.
Originals might prove valuable in ways not yet known.
I don't believe anyone has ever convinced a flatearther with reason.
https://www.capcollections.org.uk/news_events/foxes-in-hen-h...
www.liberquarterly.eu/articles/10.18352/lq.7874/galley/8079/download/
https://cudl.lib.cam.ac.uk/view/MS-ADD-03996/55
As a research scientist, one thing that has definitely changed since the passage of FTF [0] in 2013 is the loss of a singular notebook of ideas and thoughts.
Most everything is digital now, and ideas are exchanged through dozens of media which don’t facilitate easy recording to a single physical source.
[0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_to_file_and_first_to_i...
Cambridge University Library is no exception
https://www.lib.cam.ac.uk/collections/departments/digital-co...
Maybe it's the way the computer effects one's brain (I'm relatively convinced I have ADHD to at least some degree too). At very least procrastination-orbiting around that task has meant that I have a fairly functional set of scripts for blogging in LaTeX i.e. integrating the mathematics and diagrams properly is hard.
I'd never admit it in person but I'd actually love to have an ASMR channel to non-verbally ramble about the sheer volume of pointless information I have in my head.
I recently tried https://obsidian.md and found it really helped me overcome my laziness and take notes down. Another thing I have found that helps is to just make the note and deal with organization later. I started by making several unconnected notes, but they quickly grow into small graphs.
IMPORTANT WARNING: This is not FOSS and has a weird licensing model. You don't have to worry about this too much since it just makes markdown files which are easy to move between different note programs. If they do not open-source it, I am feeling fairly optimistic on making my own (if no one beats me to it, in which case I would just want to contribute to theirs).
Whether it's RFID chips, Bluetooth tags, security cameras that do "book recognition", or something else.
Heck, even something as simple as a barcode per object, shelf, cart and holding area, and you've got to scan them in and out every time it's picked up and put down (tied to your ID), and the whole system beeps with loud errors if it isn't scanned in somewhere within 30 seconds of being scanned out.
The idea that a multimillion dollar object could be "misplaced" or lost in a large collection feels appropriate to the year 1980, but by 2020 it feels positively anachronistic. (I realize this happened in 2000, so I'm wondering what prevents it today.)
But from reponses and doing a bit more research, it sounds like RFID tags have really taken off since then for tracking.
We should digitize as much as possible and background check the heck out of librarians it seems to me.
The benefit of something like RFID tags is that the thieves would need to remove the tags on-site to avoid detection, rather than at their leisure.
Presumably for expensive books an anti-tamper case like supermarkets use for expensive items (acrylic box with radio-tag) would interfere with opportunistic theft. IIRC or library use such boxes for DVD movies and PC Games.
If you want them because you care about enlightenment, wouldn't you also want them to be publicly accessible?
It makes me sad to think about all the artifacts of e.g. the Byzantine and Babylonian cultures that were stolen during the recents wars in the middle east, most of it probably made it into the hands of wealthy collectors. At least we can hope that some of the stuff will turn up again, eventually, but since most people don't know how to properly keep these artefacts from decaying there's still a tremendous risk they will be permanently damaged.
I guess it provides status and bragging rights within your social circle. When you and all your friends are rich enough to be able to buy basically anything that is legally for sale, owning stuff that your neighbor cannot also just go out and buy becomes the only interesting type of purchase left to make.
... except being a tax-free investment that will likely hold value forever (because it’s effectively unique) and is often easier to secure than more typical assets (because it’s hard to resell without very specific contacts).
That is a lot less likely when it comes to stolen artifacts.
You also may have to pay wealth tax over possessing expensive goods.
No practical benefit but status; a lot of people, rich and poor, are chasing standing.
For Criminal Organizations, drug dealers, terrorists, etc... these items can be used as collateral to secure loans or drugs on consignment, or exchanged for hostages.
They are a vital part of the black market currency exchange. This is a big part of the plot of the book "Gold Finch" if you find it interesting.
Another very easy way to look at it, if you are a drug dealer wanting to move 10 Million dollars, that's not very easy in cash even if its $100 bills. A single painting could hold the same value and take up much less physical space.
And from [2] "Artworks tend to surface either very quickly after they are stolen or else disappear into the underworld where they are traded between criminals at a fraction of their value for drugs and other illicit materials, Marinello said."
[1] https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/worldnews/11904865/van-gogh-pa...
[2] https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2011/aug/16/rembran...
At least with a museum piece, you own a tangible piece of history. It's much more material than a digital checksum chain to some 2009 Satoshi ones and zeros.
https://www.npr.org/2018/06/28/623537440/hobby-lobbys-illega...
Obviously not.
And people have been stealing art and historical artefacts as long as we’ve had civilisation so not sure why people are surprised about it now.
Given how small and inconspicuous they are, is it possible they simply got thrown away in the midst of the construction? Perhaps when the temporary building was disassembled?
Pretty clear from reading it that no one wanted to admit they’d been stolen on their watch, so they kept up some kind of pretence of it being lost within the library so they wouldn’t be public hounded for being responsible for its loss.
What do you want to happen when unique documents disappear? Call the cops? International press conference? I assure you that professional pride is much more important for these people than being 'hounded' by the public.
While there is a good chance that it was been stolen, it could still turn up . Things can go missing for, literally, centuries in collections that are big enough.
And I think calling these ‘unique documents’ is fairly undervaluing.
It’s pretty clear the people in charge now recognise they should have been reported stolen straight away.
If you want find the full size image, it may be on one of the image archives (eg. Getty, PA images etc).
A robot drives around the shelves taking photos of the books on the shelves, those are then matched to what is expected to be found in that section, obviously there will be some without names or labels on the spines - but hopefully not many. But it can atleast say there are 4 unknown books and 3 unaccounted for in a section.
Obviously that won't help in this case when delicate artifacts are in boxes.
Is it just time-limited parking infractions they're looking for, or does it do tickets for parking in the wrong zone (like resident-only parking)?
2020 update "Walmart ends contract with robotics company Bossa Nova" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24973360
https://www.sciencealert.com/these-personal-effects-of-marie...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EH_rmdeTCWY&feature=youtu.be
> Although the notebooks have been digitised, Professor Secord says the scans can never replace the real thing.
Why on earth is this just getting published now? The article reads like the library just found out they were missing.
> There were a number of "intense" searches over the years. They all drew a blank.
So they knew they were missing, they just thought they were misplaced for 20 years.
Only after a change of management they investigated the circumstances of the disappearing of the books more closely and came to the conclusion that it's more likely they were stolen.
I cannot imagine how much harder it must be for such grand one.
I'd guess it's a route for laundering too.
https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2018/02/09/584555705/epis...
Episode 823: Planet Monet
> The art market is going nuts. People are spending record amounts of money of paintings like Leonardo da Vinci's Salvator Mundi. But not everyone is rushing home to hang their new artwork up on their walls. A lot of buyers are storing their art in vast warehouses near airports. They're called, "freeports."
> Freeports exist between countries, a sort of no man's land, which means you can store your artwork there as long as you want, without having to pay any taxes on it.
> Where are these freeports? How do they work, and are they even legal? Today on the show, we try to find out.
That particular painting was by all accounts bought by (or at least for) the Abu Dhabi tourism ministry as advertising and a centerpiece for their new fancy art museum.
Although other claim it might also have been purchased for Mohammed bin Salman to go in his fancy new art museum.
Either way it seems to be two governments really really wanting a fancy new painting to show off in their fancy new art museum. The most generous interpretation would be that since the Mona Lisa directly and indirectly brings millions of tourism dollars to Paris every year having a famous Da Vinci painting of their own would bring millions of tourism dollars to their city as well.
Is it only the West that has an exclusive right over art?
If they can pay for it, and its future maintenance, and there's a willing seller, then why not? It's not like all of the Louvre's pieces were commissioned by some French king, and the same goes for MOMA or any of London's museums. In fact, let's be glad they're buying it and not looting it like the West did with a large portion of their exhibits.
No one is saying they shouldn't. The main thing people are questioning is the ridiculous amount of money they spent for a painting more and more people are convinced isn't actually a Da Vinici.
Secondly the painting hasn't actually showed up in any museum yet, and in fact no one knows for sure where it actually is.
Anonymous Oil Sheiks drastically overpaying (and shattering the old art sale record by over $150 million) for a painting that probably isn't a Da Vinci only for the painting to completely disappear makes for a fun story.
I think the painting's whereabouts are pretty well known in many circles - some vault in Switzerland. As for why it hasn't come up, it was originally bought by the Saudi Crown Prince as a vanity piece, which he decided to initially loan to the Louvre Abu Dhabi, but then he himself wanted to create a new tourism economy in Saudi Arabia to rival that of the UAE (good luck with that), so he decided not to loan it, while they await the construction of some new museum (and new city) in North West Saudi Arabia. Kinda silly tbh, but for a while it was stored on his private yacht (which is even sillier).
As for its authenticity, I thought questions around it were settled a long time back - it is a Da Vinci original because it has some corrections (change of thumb position being the main one), which are only possible in a piece an original painter would do and not a mere copyist. But it's been heavily altered because it had to be severely repainted - even the back of it had fallen to termites and the painting had to be glued together.
If it turns out to be fake, it does make for a funny story, but it's a considerably less sum than what they are accustomed to. And even if it turned out to be fake, they could simply engage the seller (Sotheby's in this case) in vicious litigation and possibly even bankrupt it (there's a parallel case against Sotheby's for the same painting by the previous owner).
Of course it doesn't matter. It's a funny little news story about weird rich people and the weird world of high end art that pops up from time to time and that people find vaguely entertaining.
As for it's authenticity, no one is claiming it's a forgery or a copy, the question is if any of it was actually painted by the hand of Leonardo Da Vinci as opposed to perhaps one of his students or another artist working out of his studio.
But perhaps still grounded a bit on knowledge of transactions in an actual manuscript collector's scene market. That, from my point of view, may or may not exist. If it does exist it's unlikely to have transactions of that size, but it would also only transact comparatively minor manuscripts. And multiplying up minor transaction volumes to enormous valuations isn't exactly unheard of. The only difference is that the factor derived from "importance" is a bit subjective, but that's the nature of a collector's market and the claim isn't really stating anything like precision. It's not like the library could have taken up a mortgage with the manuscripts as security.
Bill Gates paid $30.8 million for da Vinci's Codex Leicester at Christie's in 1994.
Dave Smith sacrificed a big screen TV to acquire a new motorcycle.
Which one has more value?
No - based on the prices fetched by similarly unique documents of great historical relevance, an estimate in this range for what they would fetch, if they were offered for sale, seems very reasonable.