Slashdot Mirror


Newton's "Principia" stolen

Silverleaf writes "O2 have a story on the theft of Isaac Newton's revolutionary "Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica" from a Russian museum. For the non-physicists among you, Newton first published his famed three laws of motion and his law of universal gravitation in "Principia" in 1687. I'm surprised this theft hasn't attracted more attention in the mainstream media, since "Principia" is generally considered the most important scientific works in history."

370 comments

  1. It's ok... by Bob+Cat+-+NYMPHS · · Score: 5, Funny

    I have that in paperback. They can have mine.

    1. Re:It's ok... by CanadaDave · · Score: 1, Redundant
      Can you get this in paperback? I wouldn't mind reading it.

    2. Re:It's ok... by spongman · · Score: 2, Troll

      I've read it, and I have to say it makes for a pretty frustrating read. He spends pages upon pages basically reinventing calculus in the context of each problem. You'll probably spend most of the book wondering why he didn't just listen to leibnitz in the first place. He probably would have saved himself a whole lot of time (and ink).

    3. Re:It's ok... by spongman · · Score: 3, Informative

      I'd recommend the first one (the blue one). The attention to detail wrt. the translation is amazing.

    4. Re:It's ok... by canadian_right · · Score: 5, Informative

      He didn't listen to Leibnitz beause he was an egostical maniac, as well as a genuis. Newton independantly invented much of calculus at the same time as Liebnitz, but he did his darnedest to get all the credit. Calculus was a shiny new thing, so it made sense to explain it in his book.

      --
      Anarchists never rule
    5. Re:It's ok... by canadian_right · · Score: 5, Informative

      More info on the Newton / Leibniz battle:
      Newton vs Leibniz

      --
      Anarchists never rule
    6. Re:It's ok... by rgmoore · · Score: 4, Informative

      There's an obvious reason why he did this: none of his readers could be expected to know calculus. It had, after all, just been invented, or was still in the process of being invented. If he wanted people to understand the concepts, he either had to teach them the math or figure out a way of presenting it convincingly without the reader needing to know calculus. Neither one is an easy prospect. I haven't read Principia myself, but I remember a physics prof mentioning that in some cases he deliberately avoided using calculus because he thought that his demonstrations would be more likely to convince people if they didn't use all that new fangled math, and it wound up being vastly more complicated as a result.

      --

      There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.

    7. Re:It's ok... by WatertonMan · · Score: 3, Informative

      Which translation did you read? There is one that is accompanied by a very good physics commentary that discusses the theorems and proof as well as contrasting the methods with modern physics. Unfortuantely I lost mine and can't for the life of me remember who the translator was. None of the versions I've seen at Barnes and Nobel or Borders are the one I had. Anyway, Leibniz rules for many reasons, not the least of which is his version of the calculus. The Monadology is a pretty interesting read as well. Even if I don't buy it.

    8. Re:It's ok... by evilpenguin · · Score: 1

      I know it is bad form (not to mention offtopic) to respond to a sig, but isn't the Wargames quote "Suitably Biblical ending to the place" not "Seemingly?"

    9. Re:It's ok... by Bob+Cat+-+NYMPHS · · Score: 1

      Don't make me rent it *again*!
      Got a URL?

    10. Re:It's ok... by Quirk · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Leibnitz was caricatured as Dr. Pangloss by Voltaire. Dr. Pangloss believed this was the best of all possible worlds and everything happened for the best. Leibnitz only published his lesser works because he sought the approbation of princes and the court. It wasn't till B. Russell unearthed some of Leibnitz's letters and more recondite works that the world came to be better equated with the logical genius of the man. My favorite idea from Leibnitz is the Characteristica Universalis wherein he proposed a sort of calculus cum esperanto which he thought would allow all issues to be made amenable to purely logical resolution. He suggested metaphysical issues could be resolved by persons taking out their pencils (or quills) and sitting down like accountants. "Gentlemen let us calculate" was his battle cry. You can begin to see why Russell, who along with Whitehead authored Principia Mathematica in an effort to base logic in arithmetic, would think Leibnitz to be the supreme logical mind of all time.

      --
      "Academicians are more likely to share each other's toothbrush than each other's nomenclature."
      Cohen
    11. Re:It's ok... by mwheeler01 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's ok because Newton stole most of his material anyways

      --
      Pretty widgets? What pretty widgets?
    12. Re:It's ok... by evilpenguin · · Score: 1

      Nor URL. I'm going from memory too, although I will say I saw the movie hundreds o' times and I think my version makes more sense. Using a nuke on Las Vegas is more "suitably Biblical" than "seemingly Biblical." The "suitability" of wiping Vegas clean with the nearest things humans posess to the wrath of God seems self-evident to me. Alas, I can't confirm since I long since lost my VHS copy of the movie and I don't love it anough to buy the DVD.

      I will say that, despite a few pathetic lapses, this is still the best "hacker" movie I've seen. It also really captures the user group/BBS (pre-TCP/IP) hacker culture I remember so fondly from my teenage years. The two guys he goes to see about how to crack the system so well match most of the people I work with: The skinny science geek and the fat bearded *nix geek. I think I'm lucky I fall into the fat, bearded *nix geek category myself, although unlike many in that category, I shower daily. None of this is relevant, of course. So I'll shut up now.

    13. Re:It's ok... by pizza_milkshake · · Score: 2

      Anyone read this? I assume it's pretty unreadable. I tried reading a translated copy of Euclid's The Elements and was pretty dissapointed -- sure, it had good stuff in it, but it just wasn't a very interesting read.

    14. Re:It's ok... by Syre · · Score: 4, Informative

      You can read it here.

    15. Re:It's ok... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      And for those of you unfamiliar with Voltaire: Dr. Pangloss is a character from his work Candide, a comical story about a hapless idiot named Candide. It's quite hilarious, and a recommended read.

    16. Re:It's ok... by Art+Tatum · · Score: 1
      I don't know, I remember being annoyed at the corny stereotypical "them newfangled computer thangies" attitude the film seemed to take. But maybe I'm remembering it being worse than it was.

      I thought Tron was more endurable. Good inside jokes (the "bit" that can only answer yes or no, the Users as gods, the I/O tower).

      Anyway, as for Vegas, I wouldn't miss it. :-)

    17. Re:It's ok... by Sex_On_The_Beach · · Score: 0

      Lame joke. +5? No way.

    18. Re:It's ok... by Ctrl-Z · · Score: 5, Funny

      ...Barnes and Nobel...

      Ahem. I assume that is the scientific division of Barnes and Noble? :-)

      --
      www.timcoleman.com is a total waste of your time. Never go there.
    19. Re:It's ok... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yep.

    20. Re:It's ok... by Fesh · · Score: 2

      Heh. I've never actually seen the movie. I'd have assumed it had something to do with The Stand. 'Course, the only reason I make that connection is that I caught the last episode of the miniseries they made... I once tried to read the book and got as far as the second chapter before giving up on it.

      --
      --Fesh
      Kill -9 'em all, let root@localhost sort 'em out.
    21. Re:It's ok... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Holy shit. An informative, interesting response that doesn't attempt to be funny, fan a flame war or make some obscure technical point. There is hope for slashdot yet. Thank you Quirk.

    22. Re:It's ok... by Bob+Cat+-+NYMPHS · · Score: 1

      I think you may be right but http://us.imdb.com/Quotes?0086567 says I am.

      I'll have to watch it again. Poor me. :)

    23. Re:It's ok... by Uma+Thurman · · Score: 1

      A wonderful goal, but it was upset by Goedel. I'm sure you've read Goedel Escher Bach, but not everyone has.

      In a nutshell, Goedel showed that not all mathematical sentences that are true can be proven logically. In other words, if you have a logical system based on a logical foundation, there are some things that cannot be derived within that framework.

      It's an important result, and one could argue that without the Principia Mathematica nobody would have cared about it enough to bother to discover it.

      --
      This is America, damnit. Speak Spanish!
    24. Re:It's ok... by druthers · · Score: 1

      Well, he did say that if he had seen far, it was because he had stood on the shoulders of giants.

      --
      *** "It's only trivia until you need it." JMR ***
    25. Re:It's ok... by haz-mat · · Score: 1

      That's remarkable, i had no idea that Pangloss was Voltaire's characterization of Leibnitz. Although looking back through my memories of Candide it becomes obvious, now that it has been pointed out, and quite a good and humorous characterization it was. If you have not read candide (to the general reader) you should, remarkably funny. However, i wonder if leibnitz, too, contracted syphulus and began to wear a silver nose :-)

    26. Re:It's ok... by Jagasian · · Score: 2

      GEB isn't the best source for learning about Godel's incompleteness theorem. I suggest Kleene's "Introduction to Metamathematics", which is a real math book written by a real mathematician. Kleene's book talks about all of the popular applications of diagonalization, from Cantor to Godel to Church and Turing.

      The important distinction that most people don't get when they learn Godel's incompleteness theorem is that it only proves that FORMAL mathematics is incompete. In another type of mathematics known as Intuitionism, Godel's incompleteness theorem doesn't even apply.

    27. Re:It's ok... by CanadaDave · · Score: 2

      Redundant my ass. That's bull-shit. 10 minutes after original posting.

    28. Re:It's ok... by Uma+Thurman · · Score: 1

      Thank you for that word "intuitionism". I have found a huge amount of fascinating reading on the web relating to that word. Enough to keep me from working the rest of the day. :-)

      --
      This is America, damnit. Speak Spanish!
    29. Re:It's ok... by CanadaDave · · Score: 2

      And isn't it surprising that a redundant post could generate so many replies... The meta-moderators will get you. mwa, ha, ha

    30. Re:It's ok... by Tassach · · Score: 1

      You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

      --
      Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
    31. Re:It's ok... by HiThere · · Score: 2

      And that's why multiple copies are so important. Practical users don't care about the original. They don't even care much about the original text (except as historians). There are lots of paraphrases and imporved explanations of everything that Newton discovered.

      And that's why the DMCA is so bad. Well, the most important reason. Many of the more famous works of literature have passed through a bottleneck, where there were only a few copies remaining. The DMCA practically mandates expiring references and works of literature. (If the publisher creates an expiration key, it's illegal to circumvent it.)

      Since that wretched bill has passed, I have severely curtailed my purchases of CDs. It's not that the publishers have necessarily done anything intentionally vile, but the context within which they are operating has changed. And not for the benefit of their customers. So a rational evaluation indicates that non-open source works, including both music and reference works, are a much poorer deal at the same price than they were previously.

      Before that foul law was passed, I was unhappy with the way that copyrights were being extended, but vaguely supposed that those who were violating the laws were acting immorally. I no longer make that supposition. I'm now prepared to assume that it is civil disobedience. Not on the scale of consciously choosen ethical decisions, but on a more basic level of "If the companies feel free to buy whatever laws will benefit them, then I feel free to ignore them when it's to my benefit." I'd hardly be prepared to defend that as an ethical position, but I'd also be reluctant to attack it. And with every new law that the MPAA or RIAA buys, I am less willing to condemn those who break the laws, and more willing to consider them more honerable than the lice who purchase or vote for these laws. Or enforce them.

      When the police are enforcing just laws, they are the friends of the citizens. When they are enforcing the huge raft of tyrannical absurdities that we currently "rejoice" in, then they are the opposite. But some of the laws are just. So there is a mixed state.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    32. Re:It's ok... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It it's so important why do we let the Russians gaurd it?

      -American Pigdog

    33. Re:It's ok... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The purple one about the goddess looks much more interesting...

    34. Re:It's ok... by Viadd · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Actually there is a better candidate for who Pangloss is a caricature of.

      Noël Antoine Pluche (1688-1761), the author of a highly popular work, Le Spectacle de la Nature (1732), took Leibnitz's ideas and ran with them, and ran, and ran, and ran.

    35. Re:It's ok... by cryms0n · · Score: 1

      But, supposedly, that was only a bitter retort against a shorter rival.

      Newton was not a fun guy!

    36. Re:It's ok... by dublin · · Score: 2

      Here it is, in all it's original glory (This is book 1, section 1): http://www.maths.tcd.ie/pub/HistMath/People/Newton /Principia/Bk1Sect1/PrL1S1.pdf

      And, oh, by the way, having a mastery of Latin will aid your understanding quite a bit...

      --
      "The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last ./ post
    37. Re:It's ok... by zobo · · Score: 2
      Newton was not a fun guy!

      That's true. On the other hand, Morel was definitely a fun guy!

      --
      83chrise.nuf
  2. Dead link? by funkdancer · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Or just slashdotted already? Gee, that was quick.

    --
    ISO certified == THX certified
  3. FP -- where's the link? by sbeitzel · · Score: 2

    Not Found
    The requested URL /news/OLGBTOPNEWS/2002-11-10T173943Z_01_L10426000_ RTRIDST_0_OUKTP-LIFE-RUSSIA-NEWTON.html was not found on this server.

    --
    Oh, go on, check out my job.
    1. Re:FP -- where's the link? by dustym · · Score: 5, Funny

      First the Principia... NOW THE WEBPAGE.

      Have these men no shame?

  4. link broken.. by NotAnotherReboot · · Score: 2, Informative

    Other source of info on this story:

    http://reuters.com/news_article.jhtml?type=human ne ws&StoryID=1715112

    1. Re:link broken.. by NotAnotherReboot · · Score: 2

      http://reuters.com/news_article.jhtml?type=humanne ws&StoryID=1715112

      fixed link; no space inbetween the e and w in humannews, sorry.

  5. wha????? by erikdotla · · Score: 1

    Reuters isn't a big enough news service?

    http://reuters.com/news_article.jhtml?type=human ne ws&StoryID=1715112

    --
    # Erik
  6. Working links by HeroicAutobot · · Score: 3, Informative
    The O2 site seems to have taken the story down.

    Google news has some more links.

    --
    I'm looking for a HEPA media filter for my TV. I'm alergic to reality shows.
    1. Re:Working links by funkdancer · · Score: 1

      Maybe it's a feature? Automatically protected against the ./ effect - if accessed by a very large number of users in short span of time, return a 404.

      --
      ISO certified == THX certified
  7. I know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny



    It must've been Hudson Hawk who stole it..

    1. Re:I know by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 2
      Damn. You beat me to the punch. --Only I would have said, "Bruce Willis", just to make the reference sound more high-brow and clever and such. But either way. . .

      So does this invalidate the three laws, or are people still allowed to fly to the moon?


      -Fantastic Lad

  8. Ebay by charlie763 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Check on ebay, I'm sure it'll be on there soon...

    --
    Welcome to the land of the free...pay toll ahead...no photography...please open your bag...
  9. Something Tells Me... by Bobulusman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That that thief will have a hard time finding a buyer. After all, it's hard explain where you got a one of kind book like this.

    --
    Cogito ergo sum in Slashdot.
    1. Re:Something Tells Me... by beldraen · · Score: 1

      You don't steal something like this unless you already *have* a buyer in line..

      --
      Bel, the mostly sane.. "Of course I can't see anything! I'm standing on the shoulders of idiots." -- Me
    2. Re:Something Tells Me... by Bitsy+Boffin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'd imagine something so specific as that would only be stolen to order. Probably a buyer already lined up or employed the bad guys to steal it for them.

      --
      NZ Electronics Enthusiasts: Check out my Trade Me Listings
    3. Re:Something Tells Me... by rodgerd · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Some shitbag will be ahppy to lock it away in a safe where they can gloat over it, happy in the knowlege they now have it at the expense of everyone else in the world.

      (Not unlike a description of the general process of privatizing the public sphere, really...)

    4. Re:Something Tells Me... by FiReaNGeL · · Score: 1

      Newton's Principa would prolly be quite pretty on the top of my fireplace i guess... as long as the kids don't make fall it in... :P It DOES make something special to show off...

      Seriously... I would not bet 5 (canadian) dollars on this... collectors of all kind exists you know... and you'll always find one interested in that kind of thing who has too much money on his hands.

    5. Re:Something Tells Me... by spongman · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Not unlike a description of the general process of privatizing the public sphere, really...
      except that privatization usually involves taking something away from the influence of a select few whose sole motivation is political gain and placing it under the influence of an arbitrarily large subset of the public whose sole motivation is the increase of its value (which is linked, in most cases, to its operating efficiency).
    6. Re:Something Tells Me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you must be a republican, eh?

      try websters...

      privatize
      Pronunciation Key (prv-tz)
      tr.v. privatized, privatizing, privatizes

      To change (an industry or business, for example) from governmental or public ownership or control to private enterprise...

      an "arbitrarily large subset of the public" ... ummm, nope. Try "the rich get richer"...

    7. Re:Something Tells Me... by Herkum01 · · Score: 2

      Uh-oh, likes like the MPAA has gotten to this one. Dillusional conspiracy theory, packed with anonymous bad guys acting as front for the "Buyer." He is not completely gone as he not referred to hoping that Tia Carrere, will rescue the book, ala "Relic Hunter."

      CmdrTaco, prepare the Brain Degauser...

    8. Re:Something Tells Me... by WatertonMan · · Score: 2

      The whole event appears in next week's Alias where Syd pretends to be a philosopher of physics looking for note by Rambaldi in the margins.

    9. Re:Something Tells Me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's definitely a rare book, but not quite one of a kind. Ours has been scanned in, and put online. However we are not prepared for the Slashdot Effect at this time, so I'm definitely not posting the link. Besides our navigation is a bit awkward and it gets a bit boring to flip though after 10-15 pages.

    10. Re:Something Tells Me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a shitbag myself, I take offense to this.

      We at the SAA (Shitbag Assoc. of America) even look down upon such behavior.

    11. Re:Something Tells Me... by spongman · · Score: 2
      you must be a republican, eh?
      Who said I was even American? But if I was, I wouldn't be a republican, guess again.

      To change (an industry or business, for example) from governmental or public ownership or control to private enterprise...
      Yeah, but privatization of state-owned entities more often than not results in a publicly tradable commodity. The influence that the public at large has over a tradable entity is arguably larger than the influence it has over the state.

      When was the last time you heard of a member of the public standing up in congress directly influencing a vote on the running of a state-owned entity? On the other hand, anyone, even the poor can buy stock in a publicly traded company and influence the decisions of its board. On the other hand, who do you think has the most influence over your congressman, the rich or the poor?

    12. Re:Something Tells Me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When was the last time you heard of a member of the public standing up in congress directly influencing a vote on the running of a state-owned entity? On the other hand, anyone, even the poor can buy stock in a publicly traded company and influence the decisions of its board. On the other hand, who do you think has the most influence over your congressman, the rich or the poor?

      you have GOT to be kidding me!!!!!!!!!! Jesus.. you think anyone with less than 0.0001% stake in ANY publicly traded company has ANY say whatsoever? Come one now!!! You are DEFINATELY either not American, or completely blind.

      yes, I get the proxy crap from my stock in the mail but the turn out is even worse than the presedential elections in the US. because my say is based on the money I have at stake, instead of the fact that I am one individual in a county or state.

      And, your "theory" is dead wrong about the public deciding the fate of a publicly owned entity... you just look at the relationship between election years and mass transit funding, public works, the list goes on and on.

    13. Re:Something Tells Me... by EvilAlien · · Score: 2
      Maybe the thief can put it in a museum...

      Who did the Russians steal it from, anyways?

      --
      perl -e 'print $i=pack(c5, (41*2), sqrt(7056), (unpack(c,H)-2), oct(115), 10)'
    14. Re:Something Tells Me... by spongman · · Score: 2
      No Im not kidding. I'm serious: every person's influence is proportional to their interest in the company. If you've got a fairer system...

      Hypothetically everyone could have an equal influence regardless of their interest, but then there wouldn't be any incentive to own more than one share in each company. A person could concievably own a share in every company. But what meaning would the value of a share of the company have? None that I can concieve.

      funny that this is in a discussion of newton's principia which discusses the calculus of limits, or infinitessimals.

    15. Re:Something Tells Me... by PopCulture · · Score: 1

      every person's influence is proportional to their interest in the company

      this is exactly what I'm trying to get at.

      but its not at all the person's interest in the company, its how much spare money they have laying around to throw at it. Its taking power away from the average citizen and putting it in the hands of the wealthy.

      --

      Here's to finally giving Bush his exit strategy in November
    16. Re:Something Tells Me... by nomadic · · Score: 2

      Some shitbag will be ahppy to lock it away in a safe where they can gloat over it, happy in the knowlege they now have it at the expense of everyone else in the world.

      Curse them! Now we'll have to start mathematics all over from the 16th century.

      I know hindsight is 20/20, but we should have made a copy while we had a chance.

    17. Re:Something Tells Me... by Guppy06 · · Score: 2

      That, or it was taken by a bunch of fanatic monotheists (take your pick) to burn as blasphemy.

    18. Re:Something Tells Me... by martyn+s · · Score: 1

      Yeah, we should do that for our voting system too. The more money you have, the more your vote counts.

      The whole point of democracy is (in theory) that everyone has an equal vote. The fact that each person's influence is proportional to his share, regarding things that should be in THE PUBLIC SPHERE is exactly the problem.

    19. Re:Something Tells Me... by jonbrewer · · Score: 2

      privatization usually involves taking something away from the influence of a select few whose sole motivation is political gain and placing it under the influence of an arbitrarily large subset of the public whose sole motivation is the increase of its value

      Good Lord man, what planet are you from!?! Do a quantitative analysis of privatizations in this world and tell me that you're not spouting complete bullshit. I'd love to hear about any privatizations that actually did place an institution under the influence of "an arbitrarily large subset of the public" and not into the hands of an even smaller select few whos sole motivation is monitary gain.

    20. Re:Something Tells Me... by mclearn · · Score: 2

      That shitbag happens to be me. I will return it in a few days disguised as a lesser known work as a "gift" to the institute. After a bizarre scheme, the original works will be restored -- I'm sure it will have something to do with water paints and the like. I haven't yet thought it through.

    21. Re:Something Tells Me... by spongman · · Score: 2

      what's the alternative? get rid of money, and all move to a valueless society?

    22. Re:Something Tells Me... by spongman · · Score: 2
      Yeah, we should do that for our voting system too. The more money you have, the more your vote counts.
      Yeah, but that's exactly how the current political system in the US works. Why else do you think so much money ($600M+) was spent to campaign for the recent elections?
    23. Re:Something Tells Me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, there's something you dont realize:

      This book lays down the basic principle of the deadliest weapons of mass destruction : GRAVITY.

      So the plot is quite clear:
      - Chechnyan rebels stole the book. As we should now know they are quite found of place of culture, Theatres, Museum... they know their way around.
      - The Iraki scientists are now busy studying the book so that they can produce weapons of mass destruction. Hey, why do you think they dont want the UN inspectors in?! Now they have to hurry because W just got a call from his friend Vladimir.

      Vlad: "Those terrorists bastards, they're stealing my books!"
      W: "Why the f**k do they need a book for, I never read one myself.."
      Dick: "Nevermind Georges, we just need to go to War"
      W:" Ah.... Ok, Make no mistake, We will hunt them and smoke them out of their libraries...."

    24. Re:Something Tells Me... by spongman · · Score: 2
      Well, I can't think of any privatisation that ended in a privately-held company, all these privatised companies were, at least partially, split into shares which anyone on the planet can buy.

      The point that you're missing, and the one I'm trying to make, is that the interest of the shareholders is directed towards monetary gain, yes, but that gain depends on the effeciency of the company in question in conducting its business. A company that doesn't run smoothly isn't necessarily a good investment.

      On the other hand the government has only a passing interest in its agencies running efficiently (as can be seen from the HUGE national debt, the high price and exclusivity of government contracts, the pending bankruptcy of the social security system, etc...)

    25. Re:Something Tells Me... by martyn+s · · Score: 1

      Yes, but surely even a quasi-fascist like you doesn't believe that this is ideal?

    26. Re:Something Tells Me... by spongman · · Score: 2
      no, certinaly not, that's my point, you fool.

      you need to look up what fascist means in a dictionary...

    27. Re:Something Tells Me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Frankly, i'd buy it, even if it costed me a fortune... Would be nice having it for the collection. Ofcourse, eventually i'd give it back by writing it down in my testament...

    28. Re:Something Tells Me... by FroMan · · Score: 1

      Or maybe it was taken by some rabid atheist who wants to bring religion into a totally no religion oriented topic. Then he'd try to make fanatic monothiests look bad by posting stupid stuff to slashdot. Why do some atheists feel they have to run around being jack-asses just like those they hate? Sure, there is the occasional fanatic monotheist who runs around yacking at people. If you don't believe what they have to say, ignore them. Why do you feel compelled to act in the same fashion of those you seem to dispise?


      [/rant]
      --
      Norris/Palin 2012
      Fact: We deserve leaders who can kick your ass and field dress your carcass.
    29. Re:Something Tells Me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Usually when someone gets rich, many other people do also. That's why we have such a large "middle class", because the type of worker which used to be "poor" now is paid well. Most companies generate wealth for many people.

      Wealth is not a zero-sum game.
      (That means "there is not a limited amount of wealth, so making one person rich does not require making others poor")

    30. Re:Something Tells Me... by zbuffered · · Score: 2

      Wealth is not a zero-sum game.

      Then where does wealth come from? Does money spring into existence from nothingness? Granted, goods and services are not zero-sum, there are always more around, but posessing these things does not make one wealthy, in the strict sense. If I threaten to beat you up unless you give me your lunch money, then I become rich as you become poor. In this example, wealth is zero-sum, is it not?
      So, give me an example of how wealth is non-zero-sum.

      --
      Synergy is your friend
    31. Re:Something Tells Me... by CommieLib · · Score: 2

      Finally, the key question. For the long answer read The Wealth of Nations: An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes. For the short answer look at a desert island example, so beloved by economists:

      You and I are stranded on a desert island. You're a doctor, and I'm a carpenter. Without working together, I die in a great shelter of pneumonia, and you die well-treated but still dead of exposure. By trading service for service, we are both better off. Money is simply a proxy for the value, so that we don't have to constantly be converting doctor-hours into carpenter-minutes into orange-grower seasons.

      --
      If your bitterest enemies are people who hack the heads off civilians, then I would say you're doing something right.
    32. Re:Something Tells Me... by operagost · · Score: 2

      Someone probably intends to hide it somewhere, then patent calculus and gravity. What prior art?

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    33. Re:Something Tells Me... by comic-not · · Score: 1

      Wealth comes into existence both spontaneously (natural resources like game, crops, timber etc.) and through work. Let's say that I borrow your axe and go to the forest and chop up some firewood. In exchange for you borrowing the axe I give some of it to you when returning the axe. Now both of us are richer than either of us would have been if you declined to borrow the axe. Investment, profit, return, it's the same thing with more abstract tokens of wealth.

      --
      Existence usually comes as a surprise (Idem)
    34. Re:Something Tells Me... by Guppy06 · · Score: 2

      "Why do some atheists feel they have to run around being jack-asses just like those they hate?"

      I'm not atheist, though. I have issues with people, not religions.

      "Sure, there is the occasional fanatic monotheist who runs around yacking at people. If you don't believe what they have to say, ignore them."

      Except that, in the past millenia or so, monotheist extremists have shown themselves able and willing to do some extremely not-nice things to people who don't share their beliefs. From the blood-letting of the Protestant Reformation to 9/11.

      Besides, this is right up their alley. Ever heard of the Library of Alexandria?

    35. Re:Something Tells Me... by rodgerd · · Score: 2

      You'll also note the author was a keen advocate of limits on capitalism, lest it destroy itself. Assuming you're not just name dropping.

    36. Re:Something Tells Me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Then where does wealth come from? Does money spring into existence from nothingness? Granted, goods and services are not zero-sum, there are always more around, but posessing these things does not make one wealthy, in the strict sense

      Production is not a zero-sum game. Splitting the property of the production is.

    37. Re:Something Tells Me... by martyn+s · · Score: 1

      I already knew what it means
      Here's the entry:

      adj.
      1.often Fascist Of, advocating, or practicing fascism.

      2.Fascist Of or relating to the regime of the Fascisti. ;)

    38. Re:Something Tells Me... by spongman · · Score: 2

      amazing, well try looking up both fascism and capitalism and finding the common ground.

  10. Google Cache by Keebler71 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Here is the cached article

    --
    "It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
    1. Re:Google Cache by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good God! Light gray text on a white background!

      Where is Jakob Nielsen when you need him?

  11. For crying out loud by whereiswaldo · · Score: 5, Funny


    Didn't someone at least make a photocopy of it?!

    1. Re:For crying out loud by Stanley+Feinbaum · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't be surprised if some corporation patented the laws of gravity and copying principia would be a violation of the dmca!

      --

      Stanley Feinbaum, professional journalist and master debater! God bless the USA!

    2. Re:For crying out loud by jkramar · · Score: 2, Informative

      They did. I realize this was a joke, but, coincidentally, I had been looking for it online just last week, and the linked site contains a full scanned-in copy of what might very well be the first edition.

      --

      true && more || less
    3. Re:For crying out loud by benna · · Score: 1

      Yeah that wouldn't surprise me either. I am waiting for some shameless company somewhere to sue everyone on the net that has published it.

      --
      "It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
    4. Re:For crying out loud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But then how would Newton make a profit off his copyright? What are you, some kind of intellectual property pirate! :)

    5. Re:For crying out loud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, for fucks sake ! It was bad enough when it was in PDF... and now it's in LATIN !

  12. Holy shit! by EggplantMan · · Score: 5, Funny

    Where the hell am I supposed to find obscure geometrical proofs of things otherwised proved by calculus now!?

    --

    ?-|||-----x<*))))><
  13. *gasp* by Windcatcher · · Score: 4, Funny

    *urp*

    *cough*

    *choke*

    They stole... Principia ?!

    (screams to the next room) BRING ME MY GUN!

    1. Re:*gasp* by lost_it · · Score: 1

      Just wanted you to know that I almost choked from laughing to hard when I read your post. It was the only one in this thread that got even a smile out of me.

      If only I had some mod points (I always get them when there's nothing worth modding...).

      Anyways, much thanks.

    2. Re:*gasp* by Random+Data · · Score: 1
      BRING ME MY GUN!

      It's no use. You'll never be able to work out the correct motion of your bullet to hit the bastard without calculus

    3. Re:*gasp* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is this from?

    4. Re:*gasp* by operagost · · Score: 2

      THAT is the definition of high-brow comedy. Kudos!

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  14. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Informative

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  15. Moscow Times by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    The Moscow times mentions the theft as well (near the bottom of the page). Not nearly as much publicity as it deserves though.

  16. Library link by prostoalex · · Score: 5, Informative

    Perhaps there should be link to the library as well. Their online exhibitions section has some interesting links for a literature buff.

  17. Funny I can still buy a copy on Amazon.com... by aCheshireCat · · Score: 1

    Perhaps Mr. Gutenberg's newfangled invention made this a nonevent.

    --
    I am a virus, put me in your .sig
  18. Those thieves! by SeanTobin · · Score: 3, Funny

    They have stolen the web page as well!

    --
    Karma: SELECT `karma` FROM `users` WHERE `userid`=138474;
  19. Did anyone else read that headline by s4ltyd0g · · Score: 1

    and think oh great, another scandal amongst the scientific community?

  20. On CNN by fritz_269 · · Score: 1

    CNN has the story here

    --
    -- Heisenberg might have slept here.
  21. This is dangerous. by CySurflex · · Score: 5, Funny

    Newtons essay is actually written on special material that in fact houses the CORE FUNDAMENTIAL ELEMENTS tha stabalize the laws of physics in our universe. If the theif has it in his mind to incenerate said document, be prepared for chaos. Apples not falling from trees, velocity and acceleration NOT functioning in automobiles (even Italian sportscars), Microsoft going open source, alphas of Doom III leaking. You get my drift. Just be careful.

    1. Re:This is dangerous. by user32.ExitWindowsEx · · Score: 1

      You mean the majority of /.'s readership will actually get laid?

      --
      "Evil will always triumph because good is dumb." -- Dark Helmet
    2. Re:This is dangerous. by Hawthorne01 · · Score: 1
      That's true. I'm not sure people recognize the gravity of this theft.

      What, would a pun about some Apple PDA thingie have been better? :)

      --
      "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
    3. Re:This is dangerous. by falzer · · Score: 2

      That's true. I'm not sure people recognize the gravity of this theft.
      What, would a pun about some Apple PDA thingie have been better? :)


      You had to set this thread topic in motion, didn't you?

    4. Re:This is dangerous. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He said chaos, not miracles.

      I for one am betting on the sluts won't notice the difference. *twiddle*

    5. Re:This is dangerous. by sublimusasterisk · · Score: 0

      Human sacrifices, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria!!

      --
      True believers seek redemption from the sin of death.
  22. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2, Informative

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  23. This is no time for jokes! by Snork+Asaurus · · Score: 5, Funny

    You don't seem to realize the gravity of the situation.

    --
    Sigs are bad for your health.
    1. Re:This is no time for jokes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why? what are you doing about it?

    2. Re:This is no time for jokes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      boy...if there was ever a time when you needed an 'undo submit' button....

    3. Re:This is no time for jokes! by cpeikert · · Score: 1

      Let's hope the thieves read the book while they air-walk over a deep gorge...

    4. Re:This is no time for jokes! by Myriad · · Score: 5, Funny
      You don't seem to realize the gravity of the situation.

      Oh do give it a rest. You know what will happen once you get a post in motion around here.

      --
      "They do not preach that their god will rouse them, a little before the Nuts work loose." Kipling, 'The Sons of Martha'
    5. Re:This is no time for jokes! by Snork+Asaurus · · Score: 2

      We have a motion from the floor to give it a rest. Any seconds?

      --
      Sigs are bad for your health.
    6. Re:This is no time for jokes! by Seclusion · · Score: 1

      "That's heavy, doc" Michael J. Fox

    7. Re:This is no time for jokes! by mizhi · · Score: 2

      Indeed, the reaction of the /. crowd doesn't fit the impact of the crime. In fact, it's completely opposite.

      ba dum psh.

      --
      Humorless sig goes here.
    8. Re:This is no time for jokes! by Art+Tatum · · Score: 2

      What I really want to know from Newton is where the "Uh oh!" sign comes from....

    9. Re:This is no time for jokes! by edrugtrader · · Score: 1

      this is an example of energy decay i think....
      5 funny, 5 funny, 3 funny.

      if this law is logrithmic, i predict a 2.5 funny for me.

      --
      MARIJUANA, SHROOMS, X: ONLINE?! - E
    10. Re:This is no time for jokes! by mblase · · Score: 2

      Oh do give it a rest. You know what will happen once you get a post in motion around here.

      I don't think he understood; perhaps you need to be more forceful.

    11. Re:This is no time for jokes! by Big_Monkey_Bird · · Score: 1

      According to the Principia Comedia, every Slashdot joke leads to a minimum of 10 equal but opposite reactions.

    12. Re:This is no time for jokes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The limit on humor is 5 as the number of jokes in this cascade approaches slashdoting.

  24. bah by grub · · Score: 5, Funny


    Newton died years ago. Why not put something in the museum that's a bit more contemporary?
    Maybe some Harlequin Romances or Stephen King?

    --
    Trolling is a art,
    1. Re:bah by jemoody · · Score: 1

      They tried this, but Mr. King objected to the insufficient amount of air he would receive inside the glass case.

    2. Re:bah by nurightshu · · Score: 2

      Yes, but since he's now dead at age 54 (but that's all I know -- there "weren't any more details"), he should be just fine on display. Matter of fact, we could just toss Ol' Vladimir Ily'ch himself out and stick Steve-o in that case! I'm sure that Lenin, that nasty old shit, would burn pretty well once his suit caught, so we could have a nice eternal (well, 45-minute) flame in remembrance of Author Steven King, Dead at 54. :)

      --
      They that would sacrifice their .sig space for that cliched Franklin quote deserve neither.
    3. Re:bah by Guppy06 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Because, unlike Harlequin books or King's works, Newton's Principa finally came out of copyright last month or so.

    4. Re:bah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What you say!! Newton's dead? I can't remember reading this on slashdot

    5. Re:bah by SimonGhent · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but be careful, the Disney version's about to come out...

      --
      simon
  25. What were they thinking? by bb_referee · · Score: 1

    Most museums place items of such great importance under locked glass, or they just lock them up altogether and show replicas. Why the hell would they just let any ol' person touch them. Paper that old is sensitive to light, not to mention the oils on your fingers!

    --
    "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
    1. Re:What were they thinking? by Clay+Pigeon+-TPF-VS- · · Score: 1

      And to think all of this time we were worried about lack of security in weapons disassembly and disposal facilities when we should have been pumping aid into Russia to secure the museums. I hope something is done before many more precious artifacts are lost.

      --
      Viral software licensing is not freedom, it is in fact GNU/Socialism.
    2. Re:What were they thinking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually that's not correct. I have had the honor of flipping through an original of Principia in Woods Hole, Mass. They actually ENCOURAGE handling the rare books because the oils in your hands help to preserve the pages.

      You are however correct about light being. Also, the room was temperature/humidity controlled.

  26. Odd by Sivar · · Score: 2

    Isaac Newton's revolutionary "Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica" from a Russian museum.

    Odd. I could have sworn it was located in the Huntington museum in California, along with Newton's notes, seeing as how I saw it not six months ago.

    Of course, it may have been moved to Russia since then. See if we'll ever loan them a famous scientific work again! :)

    --
    Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes. --E. W. Dijkstra
    1. Re:Odd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      inter-library loan perhaps? :o

      heck I'm shocked they let the thing out of storage. maybe they just treated it like any other book.

    2. Re:Odd by hitzroth · · Score: 2

      I think someone else might have mentioned this already. It wasn't the original that was stolen, but rather a first editon printing.

      --
      In mathematics, one does not understand things, one merely gets used to them.
      --VonNeumann
  27. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Funny

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  28. He might not have stolen it by jsse · · Score: 2

    but eaten it, so that the incarnation of Newton wouldn't hurt his girlfriend; but then he would have stolen the idea from Red Dragon

    "No, I don't want hurt her, but Newton third Law urges me...."

  29. The reason it is not super important by Slashdotess · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Originals in Art, especially those painted or otherwise created non digitally are hard to recreate. The information stored in the way Newton wrote, the shapes of the letters, etc is not THAT important. However, the brush strokes of a Monet or Manet are priceless.

    1. Re:The reason it is not super important by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you no sense of history? The original works of masters are pricesless, be they Art or Writings. I recently viewed an original handwritten score by Bach; Handwritten notes on the staff. Viewing the Constitution of the United States or the Declaration of Independence, originals, at the National Archives beats reading it in a textbook anytime. An original of Principia is in the same category of priceless works.

  30. Who is the victim... by Recca · · Score: 1

    now that we are free from the oppressive laws of inertia and opposite reaction? I don't even think the universe was ever planning on opening the source code to physics, and this EULA that Newton devised has just been a setback to innovative new paradigms.

  31. why mainstream media doesn't cover it by Stanley+Feinbaum · · Score: 1

    Unless a news story has to do with cloning, israel, murder, or some sort of celebrity getting charged with a crime, it won't be published. Sadly Journalism has devolved into the equivelent of a Fox special, displaying only quick thrills and eye catching (but unimportant) news and ignoring the more fundemental events in the world.

    Don't worry though, we have slashdot to fill the gaping hole left by todays bad journalism!

    --

    Stanley Feinbaum, professional journalist and master debater! God bless the USA!

    1. Re:why mainstream media doesn't cover it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One, slashdot wont fill ANY holes when it comes to bad journalism, they'll only make it larger. And two, it was a first edition copy, not the ORIGINAL, so it ISN'T as big of a deal.

  32. I have it by Dragon218 · · Score: 1

    I need it for my calculus homework. Geez!

    --

    "It's the little touches that make a future solid enough to be destroyed" --William S. Bourroughs
  33. Broken Link? by CodeWheeney · · Score: 3, Informative

    Try Reuters

    --
    C8H10N4O2 | Developer > Code
  34. Oh noo!! by [cx] · · Score: 0

    Hopefully they made copies!
    Those sneaky russians!

    [cx]

  35. I'm not suprised by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I'm surprised this theft hasn't attracted more attention in the mainstream media
    I'm not the least bit surprised. The media didn't even touch the convicted Iran-Contra felon being appointed to potentially monitor the American people. Compared to that, this is small potatos that doesn't meet the entertainment requirement in today's news.
  36. The thief must have stolen the links too! by SnoooBob2k · · Score: 1

    that sneaky bastard!

    --

    Romeo & Juliet for 1337 hax0rz! http://www.redcoat.net/pics/romjul.swf

  37. Steve baby by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Look out Stephen Hawking - you're next!!

  38. How, how, how? by gamgee5273 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    How the hell do you sell that on the black market? Is there some reclusive physicist out there collecting rare works (Einstein's drink napkin from Le Lapin Agile!) that will pay top dollar for this? If so, how does he/she show it off to their friends and family (assuming that they aren't that reclusive)? How do you explain that you just happen to have this sitting around in the family room?

    1. Re:How, how, how? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I had the resources, I'd buy it. Imagine owning such a piece of history. If I could buy it I'd build a museum around it so that I could look at the thing in peace, by myself.

    2. Re:How, how, how? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was probably stolen to order by someone who has an extensive collection of important rare scientific works. The same thing happened several years ago when several copies of Copernicus' "De Revolutionibus" were stolen from several libraries in Eastern Europe. It is not unusal at all for these works to wind up in private collections. There are copies of early printings of Newton, Copernicus, Kepler, Brahe, Galileo, Boyle, etc etc in many private collections all over the world. And most people wouldn't even know such a book was stolen. Of course many of these books are purchased legitimately by collectors.

      There was a recent (well, mid 90s) story about a guy who had stolen a very rare manuscript bible from a cathedral in Germany during WWII and kept it in an apartment in Dallas, TX for decades before his family tried to sell it after he died. They were offered quite a large sum by several prestigious auction houses who knew the book was stolen but were more interested in making a buck. It was only when it went to public auction that the German governemnt tried to get it back and fought a long legal battle for years to recover it, which they finally did. So these things are out there...

  39. probably gone forever by ez76 · · Score: 5, Funny

    I fear the crime will stay unsolved unless it is acted upon by an outside force.

  40. Not surprising at all... by repetty · · Score: 2, Funny

    I'm surprised this theft hasn't attracted more attention in the mainstream media, since "Principia" is generally considered the most important scientific works in history."

    Oh, come on. Get real... The Sooners lost to the Aggies in College Station. No mystery here.

    1. Re:Not surprising at all... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      gig 'em, aggies!

      proudest fightin' texas aggie of the class of 2003, w00t!

    2. Re:Not surprising at all... by namespan · · Score: 2

      now, if the original of this week's copy of the TV Guide had been stolen...

      --
      Libertarianism is rich wolves and poor sheep playing gambler's ruin for dinner.
  41. "theft" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Once and for all, taking a physical item from its owner is not "theft". Yes this is the common usage these days, but saying something over and over doesn't make it true.

    If you want to be accurate, use the word "take". As in, someone "took" the Principia Mathematica.

    If you want to give it a positive connotation, use the term "shared" or "loan". As in, I just "shared" my copy of the Principia with a stranger, or I just involuntarily "loaned" my copy to a man in a ski mask with a gun.

    Let the RIAA and other thugs use their propaganda words. I'll stick with morally neutral terminology.

    Remember, matter just wants to be free. This doesn't mean zero cost, but it means once you pick up a physical object, you can put it in your pocket and head for the hills, and there's nothing anyone can do about it.

    Besides, I believe the Supreme Court has already ruled that people have the right to "space-shift" other people's possessions.

    1. Re:"theft" by DriceX · · Score: 1

      You do not steal music, or movies you violate copyright laws. There is a huge difference between 'theft' and 'copyright violation'. Ask your local lawyer.

    2. Re:"theft" by ceejayoz · · Score: 2

      Actually, your local lawyer won't know the answer, as legal precedent hasn't been set yet.

  42. Hey, now I know . . . by Jack+William+Bell · · Score: 1

    Hey, now I know how to finally get myself a copy of the 'Dragon Book'. I should have thought of this before!

    Library of Congress, watch out!

    Jack William Bell

    --
    - -
    Are you an SF Fan? Are you a Tru-Fan?
  43. Interogate the Leibniz Descendents!!! by footNipple · · Score: 2, Funny
    I think there's still some bad blood because Gottfried didn't get the proper credit.

    Get my drift?

  44. don't bother, they can have mine by SHEENmaster · · Score: 1

    I've got the eBook.

    --
    You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
    1. Re:don't bother, they can have mine by martyn+s · · Score: 1

      Permissions

      -Copy
      You may not copy any text selections to the clipboard

      -Print
      You may not print any pages

      -Read Aloud
      You may not read this book aloud

  45. Stolen to order by TheSHAD0W · · Score: 2

    I heard there was this weird rich couple interested in it; something about a crystal hidden in the spine?

    1. Re:Stolen to order by miracle69 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Would you like to swing on a star?
      Carry moonbeams home in a jar?
      And be better off than you are?

      Or would you rather be a mule?

      A mule is an animal with long funny ears
      Kicks up at anything he hears
      His back is brawny but his brain is weak
      He's just plain stupid with a stubborn streak
      And by the way, if you hate to go to school
      You may grow up to be a mule

      Would you like to swing on a star?
      Carry moonbeams home in a jar?
      And be better off than you are?

      Or would you rather be a pig?

      A pig is an animal with dirt on his face
      His shoes are a terrible disgrace
      He has no manners when he eats his food
      He's fat and lazy and extremely rude
      But if you don't care a feather or a fig
      You may grow up to be a pig

      Would you like to swing on a star?
      Carry moonbeams home in a jar?
      And be better off than you are?

      Or would you rather be a fish?

      A fish won't do anything, but swim in a brook
      He can't write his name or read a book
      To fool the people is his only thought
      And though he's slippery, he still gets caught
      But then if that sort of life is what you wish
      You may grow up to be a fish
      A new kind of jumped-up slippery fish

      And all the monkeys aren't in the zoo
      Every day you meet quite a few
      So you see it's all up to you
      You can be better than you are
      You could be swingin' on a star

      Man, I loved that movie.

      --
      Linux - Because Mommy taught me to Share.
    2. Re:Stolen to order by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > [ painfully elaborate movie reference snipped ]

      Uhhh, OK man, I guess that proves it; you're in the club. Welcome to the Brotherhood of the Bird.

  46. Carmen SanDiego by Jeff+Archambeault · · Score: 2, Funny

    Sounds like something her gang would be involved in.

    Fnord

    --

    Plus ca change, plus c'est les memes choses.

    1. Re:Carmen SanDiego by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where. In. The. World. Is.

      <ultra low voice> Carmen Sandiego?

    2. Re:Carmen SanDiego by yelligsc · · Score: 1

      Good post.

      This is the only one that got a smile out of me :)

      Scott.

  47. Re:URGENT (OT): kterm doesn't close on exit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    submit but report with Linus Torvalds

    Wait ... do you mean "bug report" or "butt report" there?

  48. hummm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...all your Principia now belong to us.

    1. Re:hummm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "...all your Principia now belong to us."

      That should be "All your Principia are belong to us." For cryin out loud, get it right or don't do it...

  49. Principia by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 2



    Thank god I have my own copy!

  50. I was wondering what suddenly happened by FearUncertaintyDoubt · · Score: 1

    I was trying to figure out how I fell down and hit the ceiling. Now I know.

    1. Re:I was wondering what suddenly happened by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was trying to figure out how I fell down and hit the ceiling. Now I know.

      That is because you pitched your tent upside-down, stupid!

  51. rofl by you+are+teh+sux · · Score: 1

    hehehehe.

    that's the cleverestest thing i've read all day.

    1. Re:rofl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you don't do much reading do you?

    2. Re:rofl by you+are+teh+sux · · Score: 1

      On the contrary, I once read an entire packet of sugar.

      In one sitting!

  52. Perhaps... by dr_dank · · Score: 2

    Perhaps the thieves wanted to see if Newton was for real about the whole "gravity" thing.

    --
    Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
  53. twas flagg twas flagg by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They called him the walking dude.

    1. Re:twas flagg twas flagg by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm the walking dude
      I can see all the world
      Twist your minds with fear
      I'm the man with the power
      Among the Living
      Follow me or die

  54. See, the RIAA is right! by sconeu · · Score: 2

    The copyright expired, so the Evil Content Pirates(tm) just thought they could take it!

    Seriously, I hope they find this thing soon. It's got to be priceless.

    --
    General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    1. Re:See, the RIAA is right! by Amazing+Quantum+Man · · Score: 2

      Yeah, and because it's not copyrighted, Newton probably won't try to create any more works!

      --
      Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
  55. Principia? by bobtheprophet · · Score: 0

    Wall sonny, when I was a chillun we didn't stand for none of this "Perrrincipia" nonsense. I don't hold no truck with none of this high-falutin' Neewtonian physics. In my day we didn't need none of your so called "gravytational constant" or your "three laws of motion." Heck, we didn't but barely have the wheel, and by golly, that was good enough for us! You kids nowadays are so dad gum spoiled, going and crying to yo mommy whenever someone takes your precious book. It ain't nothing but revolting, that's what.

    --
    Don't give me none of this "nature theme" business.
  56. Rumors ... by DanEsparza · · Score: 3, Funny
    You might want to sit down for this.

    I hate to break it to you, but there are rumors that Newton actually created calculus too. Luckily, calculus hasn't been stolen yet, but it's under close watch now.

    More at eleven ...

    1. Re:Rumors ... by Dannon · · Score: 2

      Luckily, calculus hasn't been stolen yet,

      I'm sure that there are countless first- and second-year engineering students who are absolutely overcome with relief.

      --
      Good judgment comes from experience.
      Experience comes from bad judgment.
  57. 9/10th by Flamesplash · · Score: 1

    Well posession is 9/10ths of the law...

    --
    "Not knowing when the dawn will come, I open every door." - Emily Dickinson
  58. Don't Panic by Kaboom13 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This is a rare first edition, not a hand written manuscript. Although these selfish thieves have deprived Russian students of a rare and valuable text, it is not unique. A quick google search revealed that among other universities, Georgia Tech owns not only a first edition identical to the one being stolen (although the russian copy may have been in better condition, the article doesn't say) they also have a rare second and a rare third edition(http://gtalumni.org/StayInformed/magazine/ sum99/newton.html). Some other results also credited the University of Cambridge for having the most complete collection of Newton's papers. Rare first editions are mainly for bragging rights anyway. I don't see why this should be an international incident as the story suggests. Very few people outside of Russia would have ever seen it anyway, as there are other copies available in mroe convenient places anyway.

    1. Re:Don't Panic by nomadic · · Score: 2

      Especially since it couldn't have been THAT valuable if they let anonymous readers borrow it.

    2. Re:Don't Panic by Matt_B_T · · Score: 1

      Ah, but the Cambridge first edition has been defaced! Some vandal has scribbled notes in the margins. No, wait, it belonged to Newton, and they're his notes for the changes to be made to the second edition. Anyone who wants to can go to see it in Trinity College library. While you're there, there's a good chunk of Darwin's bits and pieces in Christ's, a Gutenberg Bible in the University Library.

    3. Re:Don't Panic by kalidasa · · Score: 2

      Good posting, but one quick correction:

      Rare first editions are mainly for bragging rights anyway

      Actually, first editions are very valuable for textual criticism, as they were usually proofread by the author and so tend to be very, very close to the author's intentions. While this is less true for Newton's time than for today, it is also true that in Newton's time there tended to be more correction in the middle of print runs than there are today, so the text of one first edition might be slightly different from that of another first edition. Any textual critic preparing a modern scholarly edition of the Principia would likely want to collate as many copies of the first edition as possible along with any MSS that might survive (in, e.g., Cambridge).

    4. Re:Don't Panic by Kaboom13 · · Score: 1

      I didn't mean to imply that first editions are worthless for study. Apparently there were quite signifigant corrections between the first and second editions. However, copies have been made. If we have accurate reproductions of the 1st edition's text available, the original is more of a showpeice. The exception to this rule would be a copy like the one at Cambridge another poster mentioned, which was the personal property of Newton. This text is invaluable, and an important piece for study. Even if it were scanned with the best possible accuracy available, there is potential for new discovery from the original text. You do make good points, however, and I consider it just further evidence books like this belong in libraries and not in the hands of greedy collectors.

  59. Sigh... by x136 · · Score: 3, Funny

    I saw the headline "Newton's Principia stolen" and immediately thought that someone stole a technology called "Principia" from the NewtonOS.

    Damn, I'm a geek.

    --
    SIGFEH
  60. CNN isnt mainstream? Ya... i WISH by halo8 · · Score: 1

    You dont get much more mainstream (read: corprate lies) than this

    --
    The More Knowledge you have the Luckier you Get- J.R. Ewing
  61. Re:This is no time for jokes!-Look down! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "You don't seem to realize the gravity of the situation."

    Neither did Willie. E. Coyote.

  62. Sounds like a bad B-Movie Plot by erlenic · · Score: 1

    Some bad guy wants it, so he hires a nice looking, female, international thief to steal it. I bet they got Wynona Ryder to play the part, she was just practicing for the role!

  63. Re:This is no time for jokes!-Look down! by Snork+Asaurus · · Score: 1

    ROFL

    --
    Sigs are bad for your health.
  64. Investigate Leibniz by Charles+Dodgeson · · Score: 5, Funny

    Surely Leibniz should be considered an initial suspect.

    --
    Prime numbers are exactly what Alan Greenspan says they are -S. Minsky
    1. Re:Investigate Leibniz by ackthpt · · Score: 1
      Surely Leibniz should be considered an initial suspect.

      Oh come on! Be serious for a moment, will ya? This is obviously the work of Saddam Hussein acquiring the means to build Weapons of Mass Destruction and just one more reason Bush will use to back up his regime change plan!

      "Mom! Saddam stole my physics book!"

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  65. Surprised? by ackthpt · · Score: 1
    For the non-physicists among you, Newton first published his famed three laws of motion and his law of universal gravitation in "Principia" in 1687. I'm surprised this theft hasn't attracted more attention in the mainstream media, since "Principia" is generally considered the most important scientific works in history."

    So what you're saying is: A theft of significant large magnitude did not meet with an equal response by the media... I'm sorry, didn't anyone ever explain the three laws of Media to you?

    A story at rest or in motion remains at rest or in motion unless acted upon by some editorial force

    The rate of public interest in a story is proportional to the number of times reiterated in the story, or in some cases use of the phrase "for the first time since ..."

    If the media attempts to educate the public, in the process of telling a story, the public will respond with and equal and opposite attempt to find something else to watch, read or listen to.

    It's a sad sad sad sad world

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  66. Second?? by Myriad · · Score: 2
    We have a motion from the floor to give it a rest. Any seconds?

    Second? I thought it was the first!

    --
    "They do not preach that their god will rouse them, a little before the Nuts work loose." Kipling, 'The Sons of Martha'
    1. Re:Second?? by Snork+Asaurus · · Score: 2

      Who's on first.

      --
      Sigs are bad for your health.
    2. Re:Second?? by Samari711 · · Score: 1

      naturally!

      --

      I never said I was smart, I just said I was smarter than you

    3. Re:Second?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, he's on third. What's on second.

    4. Re:Second?? by jonblaze · · Score: 1

      Not the pronoun, but rather a player with the unlikely name of "Who" is on first.

    5. Re:Second?? by Fesh · · Score: 2

      Spoilsport! I'm taking my puns and going home! *pbbbbbbtpth!*

      --
      --Fesh
      Kill -9 'em all, let root@localhost sort 'em out.
    6. Re:Second?? by Samari711 · · Score: 1

      no, what's the guy's name on second base

      --

      I never said I was smart, I just said I was smarter than you

    7. Re:Second?? by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      I don't know.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    8. Re:Second?? by Samari711 · · Score: 1

      THIRD BASE!

      --

      I never said I was smart, I just said I was smarter than you

  67. How'd you do that? by Snork+Asaurus · · Score: 2
    The slashquote at the bottom of the page on which I read your post said:

    "What time is it?" "I don't know, it keeps changing".

    (As an aside, the above should cue the Bob Dylan jokes from the old folks).

    --
    Sigs are bad for your health.
    1. Re:How'd you do that? by ninewands · · Score: 2

      Of COURSE the Times They Are a'Changing ... and I hope they DON'T stop

    2. Re:How'd you do that? by gowen · · Score: 1

      Dylan? we can do older than that. How about the Goon Show of the 1950s?

      Bluebottle: What's the time Eccles?
      Eccles: Just a minute, I've got it written down on a piece of paper. A nice man wrote it down for me. If anyone asks me the time, I show it to them.
      Bluebottle: Let me see that paper. It is writted here that it is 8 o'clock. Here, what happens if they ask you and it's not 8 o'clock?
      Eccles: Then I don't show them the piece of paper!

      --
      Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
  68. Russian-speaking press by dvk · · Score: 2

    I have seen comments about how the story wasn't covered anywhere but one Reuter's article and Moscow Times. And decided to check what's going on with main russian-language news sites.

    NOTHING. Not a single mention whatsoever. Checked 5 of the most popular newsfeeds. No mention.
    Simple search (Yandex.ru for the unduly curious :)
    turned up several articles on lesser sites. Among the interesting tidbits:
    * Another book is also missing, a 1913 edition of some book called "Le Futur" by Bolshakov
    * The book is unique (other than being the first edition) because it has marks/stamps from many other libraries. I wasn't quite sure what that meant - only one article mentioned it - but probably the history of book's ownership is quite interesting.
    -DVK

    --
    "The right to figure things out for yourself is the only true freedom everyone shares. Go use it"-R.A.Heinlein
    1. Re:Russian-speaking press by hughk · · Score: 2
      This library has had a lot of books stolen over the last ten years which is a great shame. Some of these books were those collected by Catherine as a result of her correspondence with Voltaire and Didero's visit (I seem to remember that she bought a library from a western European country and hired Didero to help catalogue it).

      Unfortunately, the library gets nothing like the money that the Hermitage gets and they too have security problems. A lot was stolen from the national library, particularly in the easly days after the full of the USSR.

      There is a new national library building that is being constructed in the Moskovskaya region of St. Pete which probbly has better facilities. I don't know if it has been finished. However, the picture in the story shows the old building near Gostiny Dvor which is the original as created by Catherine.

      --
      See my journal, I write things there
  69. No security? by (H)elix1 · · Score: 2

    No security? Heck, I saw at least five guys with machine guns when I borrowed it. I'm just trying to scan a page a day for the Project Gutenberg, and well, it is taking a lot longer than I thought. Those calculus thingies don't OCR well at all....

  70. Re:This is no time for jokes!-Look down! by Snork+Asaurus · · Score: 1
    You don't seem to realize the gravity of the situation."

    Neither did Willie. E. Coyote.

    Nor his cousin Saddam

    --
    Sigs are bad for your health.
  71. Parallel Between Theft and IP by limekiller4 · · Score: 2

    Why do people view some sets of information as too valuable for one person to own (eg, the thief or the person who hired them) yet still back the very concept of Intellecual Property?

    After all, all the robber did was remove it from the public domain, effectively. Illegal, sure, but the effect is the same; the public is out a tremendous good to benefit the greedy few/one.

    Where is the difference?

    --
    My .02,
    Limekiller
    1. Re:Parallel Between Theft and IP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's much easier to mod me down than to post an intelligent reply. ... and it's more fun, too!

      Seriously, if I had points now I'd mod you down for having such a stupid, whinging .sig.

    2. Re:Parallel Between Theft and IP by limekiller4 · · Score: 1

      An Anonymous Coward (aren't they all?) wrote:
      "Seriously, if I had points now I'd mod you down for having such a stupid, whinging .sig."

      Gee, thanks for proving my point about the moderation system being inherantly abusive, scooter. The point being that discussion is far preferred to death-by-disagreement moderation. Challenge me with your keyboard, not your mouse.

      --
      My .02,
      Limekiller
  72. yeah but britney and justin broke up by asscroft · · Score: 1

    or jlo and ben are getting married or some other nonsense crap is more important for the media owned news to help the media parent sell movies/records.

    --
    because I have been enjoined by this Holy Office to abandon the false opinion which maintains that the Sun is the centre
  73. Re:URGENT (OT): kterm doesn't close on exit by IEforLinux · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    XKILL easiest solution for sure
    make an icon on your menu bar for quick access

  74. Re:This is no time for jokes!-Look down! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    look, you got lucky with that gravity line. Don't go thinking that you're funny now. Leave the comedy to the experts.

  75. Why wasn't this more secure in the first place? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Keeping a work like this in archives and accessible to anyone who wants to see it is absurd. The British Museum doesn't let you check out the Magna Carta to read it! The National Archives won't loan you the U.S. Constitution. Why would a museum try a work this valuable with such cavalier security? More evidence that security in Russia is completely permeable.

  76. It did make news by Kortec · · Score: 1

    Unless I'm mistaken the theft diserved a paragraph on page five of the New York Times this morning. Not much, but it was there.

    --
    "My heart is in the work." - Andrew Carnegie
  77. thank god by devmike · · Score: 1

    without newton's writings, I can describe the universe however I like and not be subject to any scathing editorials about 'consistency' jeez

  78. While it's missing... by schnell · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...I'm definitely going to take advantage of F !=ma. I'm going to give my car a good shove tomorrow morning and ride it all the way to work.

    I just hope that we don't spin out of orbit while F != G(m1m2)/d2. I guess, though, that if we start to spin out of orbit, somebody on the far side of the planet can just give it a shove and we'll be back in place.

    Unfortunately, I've already noticed my CPU getting hotter. And I stood on this really tall guy's shoulders but I couldn't see very far...

    --
    "95% of all Slashdot .sig quotes are incorrect or completely fabricated." -Benjamin Franklin
  79. Re:"theft" & semantics by MacAndrew · · Score: 2

    Thanks! This reminds me of a very old Benny Hill routine: "No, officer, I did not kill my wife. She just felll on the knife. 12 times. Backwards." That is, just how much circumlocution will we tolerate.

    For the record (one exempt from RIAA) it is nice looking book, and Australia has one.

  80. Not Rumors, reality! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    This is from:

    http://astsun.astro.virginia.edu/~jh8h/Foundatio ns /chapter3.html

    Newton delayed publishing his results in part because he was forced to invent calculus in order to work out the results for the gravitational attraction of two extended bodies.

    He toyed with the idea that the interaction between the earth & the apple can be treated as the interaction between two point particles. To prove this he had to invent a formalism to add up the contribution to the interaction of different pieces of the earth at varying distances from the apple -- (integral) calculus

  81. Re:This is no time for jokes!-Look down! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry, Mr. Leno.

  82. Simpsons test by Joey7F · · Score: 2

    "Eat up martha"

    Fans will think it is funny, others will think it is overrated.

    "The emperor and his new clothes" syndrome should be good for at least a +4

    --Joey

  83. newsworthy by wkitchen · · Score: 1
    I'm surprised this theft hasn't attracted more attention in the mainstream media, since "Principia" is generally considered the most important scientific works in history.
    Apparently the theft of a well authenticated artifact documenting the foundations of classical physics isn't nearly as newsworthy as a crack in a bone box with a fake inscription and a shady history.
  84. to quote Gattaca... by webslacker · · Score: 2

    Tragic though this may be... it hasn't stopped the planets' turning ;)

  85. Re:This is no time for jokes!-Look down! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    don't force me to mutilate your genitals with a melon scooper. 'cause I'll do it!

  86. Oh great. by nlinecomputers · · Score: 1

    First its stolen. Then its slashdotted! Now I never get to read it....

    NO NO Don't mod me. Please! I'm too young to die as a stupid troll. {click} Damn, I'm bleeding karma all over my keyboard.

    --
    Slashdot, home of supporters of free software, free music, and free speech.Except for Moderators that disagree with you.
  87. Re:URGENT (OT): kterm doesn't close on exit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thanks! xkill will do for now. This _only_ happens when starting the application via a launcher from GNOME panel. If I run kterm from another kterm, it closes fine. Obviously something is fucked with GNOME.
    I think I'll take your suggestion about submitting a bug report to the KDE team though. They always have something fucked that needs fixing. ;-)

  88. Re:This is no time for jokes!-Look down! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Too late. My ex-wife has them in her house that I paid for in her trophy case that I paid for.

  89. Democracy and markets by obtuse · · Score: 2

    I'm tired of Fasciscs whining about democracy. People will deny fascism while denigrating democratic government and prosletyzing for corporate rule.

    To claim that my vote is worthless in running the state, and that a corporation would give me more power, is Fascism.

    A democratic government is intended to give a voice to everyone. I have some small amount of influence when I vote, and when I write to a representative, or participate more directly in more local government, where I have yet more influence over how things are run. Maybe voting isn't worth anything to you, but it is to me.

    I'm not saying that the government should run everything, just responding to your assertion that the stock market gives me more power than democracy.

    Corporate rule is far from democratic. The vast majority of Enron investors didn't decide to enrich the few folks who burned down the store. The folks with the voting shares weren't paying enough attention, but most of the people who lost money had no influence at all, putting the lie to your last paragraph.

    Perhaps you merely meant that the government shouldn't own anything? Of course without owning anything, it couldn't govern, and would become irrelevant. That's OK for the fascists, because corporate rule will be best for us all.

    Forced to choose between my stocks, and my vote, I'd pick my vote (even back in the 90's.) Fortunately, I get both.

    So much for my offtopic answer to a troll.

    --
    Assembly is the reverse of disassembly.
    1. Re:Democracy and markets by spongman · · Score: 2
      Sure, but you've got one vote, and that single vote is diluted among the power that the government holds over many different businesses. If you had one vote for each separate government business, then your point might be valid, but we don't.

      Your premise that capitalism is equivalent to fascism is laughable. Especially since fascism has historically ridden on the back of nationalist socialism.

      Your enron Example is interesting. I would say that it's a bad idea to invest in a company whose board members do not divest any power or display full accountability to their shareholders. You could say that government agencies are accountable to the voting public, but in reality they barely are, certainly to a lesser extent than the boards of publicly traded corporations. Who in their right mind, for example, would invest in the US social security system if they had the choice?

      As far as government owning things, I'd argue that all it needs to own is national security infrastructure, presumably an army and a police force, and the infrastructure necessary for the judiciary and legislature. Beyond that I'd say that no, historically government has not proven itself capable of running its other businesses effectively.

      I'm not trolling, to say so is fatuous.

    2. Re:Democracy and markets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fascism is the State interfering or controlling business.

      How is public control of business fascism, again?

      Buy a dictionary, tardball.

  90. They called him "the Walking Man" by Botunda · · Score: 1

    Bring on the super flu... Oh wait, we already have that. It's called the US g'vment.

  91. Edward Tufte has a copy by dmccarty · · Score: 2, Interesting
    If I'm thinking of the same book, I was at a conference given by the data display pundit, Edward Tufte (great graph paper on that site, by the way). As part of his speech he had a First Edition copy of this book, which he carefully showed us.

    What's very interesting about this book is that the printers of the day decided to take Newton's nice illustrations and print them on a new embossing press. However, the pages had to ben run through the plain type press first, then the embosser. Four hundred years ago, this was the bleeding edge of technology and his illustrations wouldn't line up with the text.

    So instead they printed the first 80 pages or so of pure text with footnotes, and at the end of the book added a section of large fold-out pages for the embossed diagrams. In addition to having to learn calculus while reading the book, looking up each diagram in an appendix must've made for some maddening reading material!

    Mr. Tufte's point was that people who create data displays shouldn't let anyone screw with it. If they did it to Newton, they'll do it to anyone.

    By the way, the colophon includes the printer's name in color (the only place color is used in the book), but doesn't even have Newton's name on it!

    Anyway, that's a little info about the book.

    --
    Have fun: Join D.N.A. (National Dyslexics Association)
  92. And this is why..... by nizo · · Score: 3, Funny

    I'm surprised this theft hasn't attracted more attention in the mainstream media

    At least in America this is probably due to the fact that when someone says "Newton" the first thing we think of is "Fig".

    1. Re:And this is why..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or an ancient PDA no one bought...

  93. Another reason to attack Iraq.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The U.S. will prove Saddam stole it looking for bomb secrets.. Attack imminent!

  94. I know, I know, don't feed the trolls . . . by achurch · · Score: 2

    Why do people view some sets of information as too valuable for one person to own (eg, the thief or the person who hired them) yet still back the very concept of Intellecual Property?

    In case you somehow missed it, nothing at all has happened to the information. The robbers stole a physical object. This particular physical object happens to contain valuable information, yes, but that information is still available from many other sources. This also has nothing to do with either the information itself or the physical object containing it being "too valuable for one person to own"; the issue is that the physical object was taken from its owner without permission. This is, quite simply, a case of theft in the most basic sense of the word.

    1. Re:I know, I know, don't feed the trolls . . . by guybarr · · Score: 2


      nothing at all has happened to the information. The robbers stole a physical object. This particular physical object happens to contain valuable information,

      not so simple. Of course math hadn't lost one bit. But historians had lost a piece of evidence. The original 1-st edition book may contain clues regarding ancient math publishing, formats, or other chemical or physical evidence. It could even hold DNA from the readers or publishers.

      Hence, this is indeed a loss to science. A small one, I agree, but a loss non the same.

      --
      Working for necessity's mother.
    2. Re:I know, I know, don't feed the trolls . . . by achurch · · Score: 2

      The original 1-st edition book may contain clues regarding ancient math publishing, formats, or other chemical or physical evidence. It could even hold DNA from the readers or publishers.

      As others have said, this isn't the only first-edition book--there are more. I don't disagree with the value of the information, but I don't think it too likely that there's something that could be learned from this particular copy of Principia that couldn't be learned from the other.

  95. Silver Bible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One page from the Silver Bible, the only one on display, was stolen a few years ago fom the Upsala University.

    The Silver Bible is oldest document written in a Germanic language. It is 1600 years old. The stolen page was recovered one year later, intact.

  96. Only Fair by freejung · · Score: 1

    Since Newton stole it from Leibniz in the first place. Turnabout is fair play.

  97. That would be more funny if it made sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative
    Newton proves the principles of calculus with geometry. Calculus basically is geometry. There have been all kinds of notation for calculus over the years, but the notation is really just shorthand for the geometry. If you can't prove it geometrically then, while it still holds true experimentally, it's hard to trace it to its first principles. The point is that you can't really say something is "proved by calculus" now, because what that means is that it's proved by the geometry that Newton uses.

    Still, sure, you can learn all about the application of the math without knowing the theoretical underpinnings all the way back to geometric first principles, but it's much more intellectually rewarding to trace them. And it's necessary in order to say that an equation is "proved" mathematically. Theories do get non-Euclidean sometimes, but you can't really appreciate that unless you know the Euclidean things themselves work.

    1. Re:That would be more funny if it made sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have constantly been frustrated by the fact that modern mathematics does nothing to show the proof behind equations. Just memorize the equation and recognize that x type of problem requires use of y type equation, plug-n-chug and voila, you have an answer. If you're really good at this, you can get a degree in mathematics or engineering and be happy (kidding about the happy part). I can't grasp these things without understanding the "why" and when I have asked "why" in most cases with teachers and professors, THEY DON'T FREAKIN' KNOW.

    2. Re:That would be more funny if it made sense by phritz · · Score: 1

      Actually, it's not. Take a look at Rudin's Fundamentals of Analysis. The only principles he invokes are the existence and ordering of the integers, and the field axioms. Although in practice, calculus is pretty much geometric, the principles are more set theoretic than geometric.

    3. Re:That would be more funny if it made sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where can I get a degree in mathematics without having to do proofs? Even at my paltry college, that's all we did!

  98. Re:URGENT (OT): kterm doesn't close on exit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here's what I came up with as a handy "exit" command:

    alias exit="kill `ps -p $$ -l|tail -1|sed -e 's/^\([^ ]* \)\{6\}//' -e 's/ .*//'`"

    Seems to work (although I'd imagine there is a more elegant way of getting the parent pid), and I don't need to change my habits of typing the "exit" command to close my terminal, since only my work machine is fucked. My home machine's kterm works as usual.

  99. Re:URGENT (OT): kterm doesn't close on exit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was able to simplify the above (should have looked more carefully at the ps man page):

    alias exit="kill `ps -jhp $$|sed -e 's/ .*//'`"

  100. If I had mod points right now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you'd all be going up up up... until another counter-acting force brought you to rest

    posted anonymously to protect the reputation of those who know me. Clearly, my own reputation is beyond salvation.

  101. that's why we keep backups, folks by g4dget · · Score: 2

    EOM

  102. Importance by Sabbath.sCm · · Score: 1
    I'm surprised this theft hasn't attracted more attention in the mainstream media, since "Principia" is generally considered the most important scientific works in history."

    Damn, and I thought the wheel and fire were considered the most important ones.

  103. I'm not surprised by frovingslosh · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I'm surprised this theft hasn't attracted more attention in the mainstream media, since "Principia" is generally considered the most important scientific works in history."

    I think it's particularly telling but not at all suprising that this hasn't gotten the attention that a theft of other items such as art would get. The media and liberal arts people who would make a fuss don't understand or care about science, so they would give a lot more attention to the scribblings of a second rate artist than to a scientific work. Scientists value the information, not the paper, and know that can't be taken, and the media gives them little attention anyway unless a giant rock is heading towards Earth. It's a shame to have the artifact vanish, but I'm not at all surprised that more attention is given when a thief breaks in and steals from Madonna.

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
    1. Re:I'm not surprised by Shynedog · · Score: 2, Informative

      I think it's particularly telling but not at all suprising that this hasn't gotten the attention that a theft of other items such as art would get.

      The reason this story hasn't attracted more media attention is that the book wasn't an original. It was a rare first edition, of which there are still 200 left, with 70 in the U.S. alone. See here.

      If a rare "first print" of the Mona Lisa were stolen, yet there were still more than 250 left in the world (not to mention the original), the media would barely even mention it.

    2. Re:I'm not surprised by Schwarzchild · · Score: 2
      The media and liberal arts people who would make a fuss don't understand or care about science, so they would give a lot more attention to the scribblings of a second rate artist than to a scientific work.

      I agree. In Florence, Italy they have a copy of Copernicus' or Brahe's (I can't remember which) work on celestial mechanics and yet it is placed in a very unobtrusive place whereas paintings by unknown (to me) artists are placed more prominently.

      --

      "sweet dreams are made of this..."

  104. 9th Gate by spruce · · Score: 1

    Actually the thief probably stole it for a client who is trying to obtain all three remaining copies of this book of logic.

    Each copy has slightly different sets of drawings, and it is believed that when the correct drawings from each are put together that whoever reads from the book will have extreme powers of the mind, and be able to perform strong feats of logic, such as getting rid of religion.

  105. not a big deal by commodoresloat · · Score: 2

    They stole the Principia Mathematica, not the Principia Discordia. It's OK; put your gun away.

  106. This Is The Same Museum That by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is the same museum that keeps Babbage's Analytical Engine in the daycare. Kids are allowed to play with it, but only if they use the museum's wooden mallets and only if they share with the other kids. To be sure it isn't damaged, no one is allowed to take it into the cafeteria. They settled on that policy after the Shroud affair.

    When the Shroud Of Turin was on exhibit at that museum, several museum-goers accidentally knocked their wine glasses over on it, several spilled spaghetti sauce, and there were a number of coffee mishaps. Fortunately, the museum janitorial staff are trained to deal with rare artifacts; they used the "gentle" cycle on the Maytag in the basement to avoid doing too much damage.

    Of course, the Ark wasn't so lucky. It got pretty cold and kind of wet in the painting storage warehouse last winter, what with the temporary patchwork canvas and wood roof and all, so the Ark was burned in the warehouse woodstove for heat. It did do a nice job of keeping the humidity down for a couple weeks, and Ivan Stanyanko said it cured his rheumatism, so it wasn't really a waste at all.

    It's a pretty cool museum. They're always looking for new exhibits.

  107. Of course it's not in mainstream media... by aliens · · Score: 1

    Does it have anything at all to do with the Royal Family?

    --
    -- taking over the world, we are.
  108. Why blame people? by Tablizer · · Score: 2

    Perhaps Newton was wrong about gravity afterall and some unaccounted force levitated the thing out of a vent or window.

  109. that's what they all say by Tablizer · · Score: 2


    Rich Russian kid: "I couldn't finish my math report, teacher, because a thief stole my library book."

  110. Whats really important ... by lightweave · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What about Newton's "Principia? I mean it's not as if nobody knows about it. Everbody who studies physics, and many not studying it, know whats in this book already so why the fuss about an old book?
    If, i.e. Claudia Shiffer panties were stolen, well that would be a tremendous loss and I bet that media would have weeks of reporting over that (at least here in Germany), talks shows would be inviting people who would have something to say about it and radio stations would stop sending for a minute as a tribute to that loss. But Newtons Prinicpia? Gosh! Some people don't seem to have their priorities right in reporting such trivial stuff.
    Considering the mdeia hype when the Big Brother series was running I'm not really suprised at all.

  111. The book wasn't that good anyway by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 2, Offtopic

    Those of you hopping up and down about this should calm down. This is not a big story.

    This copy of the Principia was one of the first edition copies. First editions are crap. They have all the errors and misspellings, and they come out with nicer editions afterward that make you feel stupid for not waiting a little longer. Just look at all those first edition "Lord of the Rings" DVDs that are now for sale on Ebay. Newton probably filled his "Principia Director's Cut" with at least 30 pages of extra stuff for those Renaissance astronomers who were willing to wait and pay a little extra for the famous "apple scene".

    Second, you have to remember that the book really isn't that good. While Newton was trying to describe concepts such as planetary motion and orbital dynamics that usually involve calculus, the only branch of mathematics well known at the time was Euclidean geometry. So the Principia is dumbed down to the level of his contemporary boneheads- and it suffers greatly for it. For example, here is a section cut and pasted from the Principia (the author has been dead since 1727 so this is probably still safe):

    PROPOSITION XI. PROBLEM VI.
    If a body revolves in an ellipsis; it is required to find the law of the centripetal force tending to the focus of the ellipsis.

    Let S be the focus of the ellipsis. Draw SP cutting the diameter DK of the ellipsis in E, and the ordinate Qv in x; and complete the parallelogram QxPR. It is evident that EP is equal to the greater semi-axis AC: for drawing HI from the other focus H of the ellipsis parallel to EC, because CS, CH are equal, ES, EI will be also equal; so that EP is the half sum of PS, PI, that is (because of the parallels HI, PR, and the equal angles IPR, HPZ), of PS, PH, which taken together, are equal to the whole axis 2AC. Draw QT perpendicular to SP, and putting L for the principal latus rectum of the ellipsis (or for 2BC^2/AC), we shall have L QR to L Pv as QR to Pv, that is, as PE or AC to PC; and L Pv to GvP as L to Gv; and GvP to Qv^2 as PC^2 to CD^2; and by (Corol. 2, Lem. VII) the points Q and P coinciding, Qv^2 is to Qx^2 in the ratio of equality; and Qx^2 or Qv^2 is to QT^2 as EP^2 to PF^2, that is, as CA^2 to PF^2, or (by Lem. XII) as CD^2 to CB^2. And compounding all those ratios together, we shall have LQR to QT^2 as ACLPC^2CD^2, or 2CB^2PC^2CD^2 to PCGvCD^2CB^2, or as, 2PC to Gv. But the points Q and P coinciding, 2PC and Gr are equal. And therefore the quantities LQR and QT^2, proportional to these, will be also equal. Let those equals be drawn into SP2/QR, and LSP^2 will become equal to SP^2 QT^2 / QR. And therefore (by Corol. 1 and 5, Prop. VI) the centripetal force is reciprocally as LSP2, that is, reciprocally in the duplicate ratio of the distance SP. Q.E.D.

    Holy crap! And you should see the pictures! Can you imagine it in Latin, too! Whoever stole this book is going to be sorry. You'd have to be a crazy person to want to steal this book, or to bid on it if it shows up on Ebay. I think we can assume that the remaining copies of this first edition Principia aren't going to walk anytime soon.

    Explaining concepts for a wide audience using insufficiently advanced math is a very difficult trick to pull off. Feynman did a reasonably good job of it in QED. But seriously, would you rather read a book by Feynman or Newton? Feynman also wrote books that told you how to pick up bar chicks. Newton wrote his books in Latin and died a virgin. Before Feynman died he made history by breaking a piece of rubber on national TV. Newton's career, on the other hand, ended at the mint where he spent the rest of his life hanging counterfeiters. Both of these guys were really smart. But which one do you think did a better job at writing books for people with a limited attention span?

    Third, the theories are wrong. They look good at first, and seem to explain most phenomena very well. But if you kick the tires and look at more accurate measurements, you start noticing things don't quite match up right. The perihelion of Mercury precesses, when Newton claims it shouldn't. And while F = GMm/r^2 gives good numbers for everyday work such as hurling probes at high speed into Mars, it's wrong. The equation is just wrong; it gives wrong answers! They're usually close but they're always wrong. The very first equation they teach you in high school physics is another one that Newton came up with, F=ma, and F=ma is wrong too! F starts to get bigger faster than a at high speeds! They have F=dp/dt, and that equation works with relativity, so why don't they indoctrinate kids' heads with that one? Probably because it uses Leibniz notation, and Newton hated Leibniz. And high school physics even today is under the thrall of Newton.

  112. Newton's Law of Gravity Stolen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In other news today, Newton's law of Gravity was stolen. In its place, people found a theory by A. Einstein. Police are currently baffled by it. "We just can get our heads around it. Newton's was so much simpler to look at". In other news, Cows have been seen drifting off into space.

  113. Leibniz's good life and the best worlds by Pyrosophy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This is actually a bit misleading. Leibniz did not die without honor... he was a nobleman's nobleman who worked for kings and princes and the like.

    He didn't get credit for the Calculus as readily, but it's not like he was Baruch Spinoza or William Blake (or David Hume for that matter). The man was a philosopher to royalty. The calculus was only one of his great philosophical achievements and that was noted in his time.

    Incidentally, Leibniz's argument which Voltaire ridicules is kinda neat. God is all knowing, all powerful, and all loving. Because he is all knowing, he knows all the possible worlds he could have made. Because he's all poweful, he could make any worlds he knows. And because he's all-loving, he would only make the best of all the possible worlds for us of those that he knows (all of them) and can make (all of them).

    So this is the best of all possible worlds.

    1. Re:Leibniz's good life and the best worlds by Steve+Franklin · · Score: 0, Troll

      "God is all knowing, all powerful, and all loving. Because he is all knowing, he knows all the possible worlds he could have made. Because he's all poweful, he could make any worlds he knows. And because he's all-loving, he would only make the best of all the possible worlds for us of those that he knows (all of them) and can make (all of them)."

      And that, dear children, is how the rabbit lost his tail....

      What so amazes me is how people with such idiotic ideas rattling around in their heads could have actually found enough properly functioning brain cells to solve major problems in physics.

      --
      Hic iacet Arthurus, rex quondam rexque futurus.
    2. Re:Leibniz's good life and the best worlds by operagost · · Score: 2

      Maybe because it's not an idiotic idea, and you're just closed-minded. Did you ever think of that? Or are you one of the elitist atheists, who think that anyone who believes in the ultimate mystery of God must be an idiot?

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    3. Re:Leibniz's good life and the best worlds by operagost · · Score: 2

      By the way, before someone calls me an idiot, I'd like to point out that I don't agree with Liebnitz's logic either. I just find these kind of knee-jerk dismissals tiresome.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    4. Re:Leibniz's good life and the best worlds by Cryptnotic · · Score: 2

      Logical paradoxes involving God such as these are like Zen koans for Christians, especially Catholics. It is a mental exercise now just as it was back then.

      --
      My other first post is car post.
    5. Re:Leibniz's good life and the best worlds by Rick+the+Red · · Score: 2
      And that, dear children, is how the rabbit lost his tail....
      What so amazes me is how people conclude that evolution and religion are mutually exclusive concepts. What is so difficult about the idea that evolution is just another of God's tools, like erosion or plate tectonics? If you were explaining the Big Bang to nomadic shephards of 5000 years ago, wouldn't you find "The Lord said, 'Let there be light'" a concise description?

      --
      If all this should have a reason, we would be the last to know.
    6. Re:Leibniz's good life and the best worlds by Foresto · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      "So this is the best of all possible worlds."

      Candide, anyone?
    7. Re:Leibniz's good life and the best worlds by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      And because he's all-loving, he would only make the best of all the possible worlds for us of those that he knows (all of them) and can make (all of them).

      Certainly Leibniz should have known that you can prove anything when you start dividing by zero or multiplying by infinity.

      I'd bet that the omnipotent God created a stone so large that even he couldn't lift it and then got squashed trying. That's why there is no sign of him around today.

    8. Re:Leibniz's good life and the best worlds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By the way, before someone calls me an idiot, I'd like to point out that I don't agree with Liebnitz's logic either.

      To help you fulfil your dream of pointing that out before someone calls you an idiot, I'd just like to say : you're an idiot.

      HTH

    9. Re:Leibniz's good life and the best worlds by Un+pobre+guey · · Score: 1
      evolution is just another of God's tools

      This is the currently fashionable argument:

      The Bible is both literally and metaphorically true, and I have the right to supplement and reinterpret it to make it meet and survive all possible challenges.

  114. there's a "one of" missing in the review. by gTsiros · · Score: 2

    The submitter forgot about Euclid's elements. That one is even more important. Not only scientificaly but also paedagologicaly. However, we don't have the prototype. *sigh*.
    (IAAP:i am a physicist)

    --
    Looking for people to chat about multicopters, coding, music. skype: gtsiros
  115. Stolen to order... by hughk · · Score: 2
    The Russian National Library has had a lot of books removed, probably to order. The collection was started under Tsarina Catherine the Great and included many original works from different spheres that were collected from Europe. She was particularly interested in the arts, philosphy and the sciences (a part of philosophy).

    She collected art works too which has turned into the Hermitage Museum. Whilst the Hermitage isn't funded well enough and the security is poor, the Russian National Library has negligiable funding so security is almost non existent. The staff are poorly paid and there are not enough of them.

    Most books that have been stolen from there are never seen again, which implies they have been disposed of in private collections.

    --
    See my journal, I write things there
  116. Why is this even news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's one of many first editions. It's not the original which is more likely to be located in the British Library (keeper of all published works in the Empire) than anywhere else....

  117. "The Great Scientist Isaac Newton" by Get+Behind+the+Mule · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I remember watching C-SPAN years ago when some bill or other about federal funding for scientific research was being debated. Some typical Congresscritter was on, the worst kind of clueless politician, way in over his head. He supported the bill, which put him on the right side in my view, but one could easily see that he was trying to profile himself as being "friendly to science", although he in fact understood very little of it.

    To illustrate his views, he introduced a quotation of Newton's by saying something like, "As the Great Scientist Isaac Newton once said, ...", with a bit of rhetorical flourish on the man's name.

    I was depressed. One would hope that anyone could speak of Isaac Newton without any further introduction, but clearly, this Congresscreature felt compelled to tell us that he was the "the Great Scientist". Otherwise, he ran the risk that his audience wouldn't know who in the world he was talking about.

    Why isn't there more interest in this story, you ask? Well, because quite a few people haven't the slightest clue who Newton is or what the Principia is all about. Not unless you mention "the Great Scientist".

    1. Re:"The Great Scientist Isaac Newton" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Idiot.

      Even in scientific circles you sometimes prefix Newton's name with that. But of course you didn't know that, obviously not being a scientist yourself, but rather just trying to come off as one.

      And as to why there hasn't been much interest in the story? I can say only one thing: READ THE FUCKING ARTICLE! It clearly states the manuscript wasn't single or unique, but merely a rare first copy. You probably have one in a university library near you too.

      Fucking troll.

  118. I bet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...it was Steve Jobs. He always hated Newton.

  119. It was only a first edition by perky · · Score: 2

    So Newton's own copy is still in Trinity Library, and I'm sure there are plenty of other copies around. What's all the fuss about?

    --
    "The new wave is not value-added; it's garbage-subtracted" - Esther Dyson, Dec 1994
  120. Why does anyone read this anyway? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's been superceded by Einstein's special and general theories of relativity.

    There's no need to keep these books around. They should be remaindered and pulped to make CD inserts for the latest Britney album. (I've had a sneak preview, and it's awesome!!)

  121. Not a Disney movie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why would it cause a stir? It's not the intellectual property of a major movie studio.

  122. The real question by mgibbs · · Score: 1

    ...is whether it's now in the hands of the CIA or SD-6.

  123. First loose Russian nukes... by IxnayOnTheIxnay · · Score: 1

    ...now some terrorist knows all about motion and gravity. Thanks a lot, Russia.

  124. Erhm... NO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think it's particularly telling but not at all suprising that this hasn't gotten the attention that a theft of other items such as art would get.

    No big deal was made of because it's not single or unique. It's one of many. A rare first edition copy, granted, but there are a lot of those. There wasn't even any security to speak of. This is why there hasn't been much media attention.

    The media and liberal arts people who would make a fuss don't understand or care about science

    Yeah, yeah, what the fuck ever. Remember when an original Enigma was stolen? Obviously you don't. That attracted media attention. Why? Maybe because, once again, it wasn't up for grabs all over the place, unlike this one.

    Scientists value the information, not the paper, and know that can't be taken, and the media gives them little attention anyway unless a giant rock is heading towards Earth.

    Scientists are the pets of the media these days, not artists. You can't read half a page of a normal newspaper without coming across the opinion of an "expert."

    RTFA next time, will ya? Nobody wants your FUD.

  125. Gratuitous Airplane! Quote by kev0153 · · Score: 1

    Ted Striker: Surely you can't be serious. Dr. Rumack: Yes I am serious...and don't call me Shirley.

  126. Important Yes, but not the "most important" by pstreck · · Score: 1
    "Principia" is generally considered the most important scientific works in history.

    While I will agree that Newton's "Principia" is an extremely important work and can be held responsible for one of the biggest changes in the ways human look at reality. However I feel that by saying any single work is the most important is absurd. Einsteins General Theory of Relativity is at least as important if not more. Yet it would not have been made possible without Newton's previous theory. So saying one peice of science is the most important simply does not have any sense in the statement due to the fact that all scientific works build upon another.

    --

    Later,
    Phil
  127. the original? by AssFace · · Score: 2

    I am pretty sure there are a few "originals" - my college had one in ther Rare Books Library that you could see under glass, but obviously not take out and molest.

    Not to say that makes the theft of this one any better, but I just wanted another chance to post about rare books. Those things fascinate me.

    Especially them rare books with nekkid chicks in 'em.

    --

    There are some odd things afoot now, in the Villa Straylight.
    1. Re:the original? by kasek · · Score: 1

      the bbc article (linked to in several other comments) mentions this. It reports there were about 250 copies from the first edition, and about 200 are still known to exist, 70 of which are in libraries in the united states. which could be another reason it doesnt garner as much attention...1 goes missing, but theres still 199 that arent.

  128. Probably going to end up in some private library of some shady industrial magnate or russian maffia boss.

  129. It's ok! by Dexter's+Laboratory · · Score: 2, Funny

    I just dropped my Apple Newton and apparently it does fall to the ground. It missed the student sitting under the tree, but I am sure this was nothing to worry about.

  130. What's the Big Deal? by An+El+Haqq · · Score: 0, Troll

    Isn't the Principia Mathematica basically obsolete? Who cares what happens to an old rag except for nostalgia mongers?

    Woot! Einstein in da House, yall!

  131. Re:This is no time for jokes!-Look down! by SEWilco · · Score: 1

    Wile E. Coyote.
    Get the important things right.

  132. Library Fines?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder if they will let the thief off if he returns it within two weeks.

  133. worthless by pensano · · Score: 2, Funny

    No big deal, that text is worthless now that all of physics has been supplanted by "A New Kind of Science." I don't think Newton even warranted a comment in the End Notes.

  134. Not exactly arithmetic by Steve+Franklin · · Score: 2

    "...Russell, who along with Whitehead authored Principia Mathematica in an effort to base logic in arithmetic..."

    As can be seen in Universal Algebra, their approach is algebraic, not arithmetical. It involves the manipulation of equations, not the calculation of numerical values, in the service of determinating truth and falsehood.

    --
    Hic iacet Arthurus, rex quondam rexque futurus.
    1. Re:Not exactly arithmetic by Quirk · · Score: 2

      As can be seen in Universal Algebra, their approach is algebraic, not arithmetical.

      Thanks for the input. I went from recall off the following quote.


      The next man of importance was Frege, who published his first work in 1879, and his definition of "number" in 1884;but in spite of the epoch-making nature of his discoveries,he remained wholly without recognition until I drew attention to him in 1903. It is remarkable that, before Frege, every definition of number that had been suggested contained elementary logical blunders. It was customary to identify "number" with "plurality". But an instance ofnumber is a particular number, say 3, and an instance of 3is a particular triad. The triad is a plurality, but the class of all triads - which Frege identified with the number3 - is a plurality of pluralities, and number in general,of which 3 is an instance, is a plurality of pluralities of pluralities. The elementary grammatical mistake of confounding this with the simple plurality of a given triadmade the whole philosophy of number, before Frege, a tissue of nonsense in the strictest sense of the term "nonsense".


      From Frege's work it followed that arithmetic, and pure mathematics generally, is nothing but a prolongations of deductive logic. This disproved Kant's theory that arithmetical propositions are "synthetic" and involve a reference to time.

      The development of pure mathematics fromlogic was set forth in detail in Principia Mathematica, by Whitehead and myself.

      Bertrand Russell History of Western Philosophy Chap XXXI

      --
      "Academicians are more likely to share each other's toothbrush than each other's nomenclature."
      Cohen
  135. The Most important scientific works ! by denisbergeron · · Score: 1

    >"Principia" is generally considered the most important scientific works in history.

    For my knowledge of the scientific hitory, I think that the most importat scientific work in modern history was the "Le discour de la méthode" of Descartes in 1534. All other work in modern history take the base of his Discours.
    Of course, the most important scientific works in history, was the "Republica" of Platoon, and spefictly, the part in the cave..

    --
    Ceci n'est pas une Signature !
  136. Voodoo by nightsweat · · Score: 2
    I think a lot of the reason why there hasn't been press coverage of the theft on the level you might expect has to do with the nature of science versus literature.

    Scientific texts are always evolving and subject to verification, repudiation, clarification, and refinement. As such, they are living ideas that don't reside on a dusty page only.

    Literature, on the other hand, is much more like magic. One can't prove that Hamlet was crazy. One can't demonstrate scientifically and early in the text that Dimsdale is the father of Hester Prynne's child. As such, the actual object that originates literature is more "interesting" to the average person since it represents the genesis of an idea or a story, while a scientific text is seen as more the capturing of laws and facts that exist without regard to Man.

    --

    the major advances in civilization are processes which all but wreck the societies in which they occur - A.N. White
  137. Media coverage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of course there is no media coverage, it's only an important scientific work. Now if Jerry Falwell's bible was stolen, you would see media coverage comparable to the recent sniper coverage. Welcome to the New Dark Ages.

  138. Same story, another link. by Governerd · · Score: 2, Informative

    The link to O2 produced a missing page. Here is BBC's blurb on the same subject.

  139. No -- What colour is the sky in your world? by Interrobang · · Score: 2

    No, that's usually, "takes it out of the hands of the public and their accountable elected representatives, and places it in the hands of a few whose sole motivation is the increase in its share price usually at the expense of its operating efficiency," most often with a concomitant increase in public risk burden (privatize the benefits, socialize the costs of business, after all). Or did you miss Enron, all those California blackouts, and that study of 24 thousand for-profit and not-for-profit hospitals?

    In this case, though, the thief of Newton's books looks like they're privatizing both the benefits and the risks, especially to their ass, which will be grass if and when the authorities find them.

    1. Re:No -- What colour is the sky in your world? by saskboy · · Score: 1

      I just learned about this book in Astronomy a few weeks ago. It is a loss for humanity if it is not recovered, and I hope the fellow who did this will rot.

      --
      Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
  140. SD-6 has it by psgalbraith · · Score: 1

    The document is said to contain encrypted secrets
    that could lead to control of foreign goverments.
    Unfortunately, Agent Sydney Bristow learned of the mission to steal the document too late for the CIA to arrange a counter-mission.

  141. DMCA Alert on Principia!!!! by Big_Monkey_Bird · · Score: 1

    The MPAA claims they purchased the rights to the Principia when they released "Bodies, Rest and Motion"

  142. In other news.... by stupowers · · Score: 0

    CowboyNeal now has an original 'Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica' on his mantelpiece.

  143. Impossible God by MisterSquid · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    I really appreciated your summary of Leibniz's theological analysis of an omnipotent and omniscient being.

    A question comes though, what about impossible worlds? Does Leibniz's God, being omniscient, know about worlds that he/she/it cannot make, worlds which are impossible? If so, God is not omnipotent.

    Or, maybe there is no such thing as an impossible world. If so, let's imagine one of the worlds in which he/she/it does not exist. That world--the world where God does not exist--is not one God can create. Again, God is not omnipotent.

    Hence, God cannot be omniscient and omnipotent simultaneously. Either power is blind, or sight is powerless. Take your pick:

    1. God as brute, or
    2. God as voyeur
    --
    blog
    1. Re:Impossible God by V4L1S · · Score: 1
      You can't make a world with a contradiction because as soon as you succeed, you have failed. Ya' dig?

      --
      "DRM is a mandatory buggy whip in every car." MadAhab (40080)
    2. Re:Impossible God by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      This is a simple and common mistake people make talking about omnipotence. No one claims that God can do what is logically impossible. "Omnipotence" does not mean "able to do what cannot be done", it means "able to do all things".

      Semantically void statements (such as "Why can't God do what cannot be done?") do not constitute valid arguments against omnipotence. Just because you can express a logically ridiculous statement in English doesn't mean that anyone needs to pay attention to it. "A rock so heavy that God can't lift it" (to use the canonical example) has no more semantic meaning than "colorless green ideas". God's inability to create either is no argument against Him.

      Similarly, omniscient does not mean "knows what cannot be known". It means "knows all (possible) things". Something truly unknowable would not violate God's omniscience, since it would not be something which could be known.

      So, while there are perfectly reasonable arguments against God's omnipotence or omniscience, this type of approach is just too simplistic. And too linked to imperfect human language (which allows the formulation of meaningless statements).

    3. Re:Impossible God by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      Um...who says god can't create a world in which god does not exist? Seems that's a pretty large assumption to me.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    4. Re:Impossible God by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 1

      Does Leibniz's God, being omniscient, know about worlds that he/she/it cannot make, worlds which are impossible? If so, God is not omnipotent.

      The nature of omnipotence isn't being able to do the impossible. That's like saying, since God can't add 1 and 1 and get 3, therefore he's not omnipotent. Omnipotence doesn't imply that you can perform logical contradictions.

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    5. Re:Impossible God by Pyrosophy · · Score: 1

      Oh, and if God exists, it's supposed to exist necessarily. So there wouldn't be any worlds in which God didn't exist as logically necessary existence is defined as "existence in every possible world".

    6. Re:Impossible God by NulDevice · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This is one of the theological pitfalls of monotheism. If you have an omnipotent god, you get all sorts of fun little paradoxes.

      i.e. can God make a pie so big that even He couldn't eat it?

      Reagrdless of the answer, you're left with an non-omnipotent god, which goes against the omnipotent monotheistic ideal.

      Many philosophers have spent a lot of tiem rationalizing this out. Otehres have spent a lot of time using this to prove that God doesn't exist.

      Polytheisms don't fall victim to this, since rarely do they ever have or need an all-powerful god-figure. Gods/goddesses with specific domains don't need to be all-powerful to get their jobs done. Of course, polytheism has other theological problems.

      Theological philsophy is interesting to study. Brain-hurting sometimes, but fun.

      --

      ----
      "I used to listen to Null Device before they sold out."

    7. Re:Impossible God by Rick+the+Red · · Score: 2
      You confuse "world" with "universe." In this universe, there is no world without God. That's your impossible world -- a godless world in God's universe. You're right, God can't make that.

      --
      If all this should have a reason, we would be the last to know.
    8. Re:Impossible God by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what's wrong with answering a logically contradictory statement with a logically contradictory answer?

  144. Ransom Note Found At Scene by 4of12 · · Score: 2

    stating:

    "All your principles are belong to us!"
    --
    "Provided by the management for your protection."
  145. If You Can't Argue, Call It A Troll by limekiller4 · · Score: 2

    achurch writes:
    "In case you somehow missed it, nothing at all has happened to the information. The robbers stole a physical object. This particular physical object happens to contain valuable information, yes, but that information is still available from many other sources. This also has nothing to do with either the information itself or the physical object containing it being "too valuable for one person to own"; the issue is that the physical object was taken from its owner without permission. This is, quite simply, a case of theft in the most basic sense of the word."

    No, I didn't miss a thing.

    The point is that the robbers have said, basically, "this is now mine" to the exclusion of everyone else. Similarly, Intellectual Property Laws do the same thing -- they legally give one person the exclusive right to a chunk of information to the exclusion of everyone else.

    I'm not trying to say that both items were physical, I'm saying that in both instnaces, one person gained while everyone else suffered.

    You argue that a physical item was taken from the owner and as such it is a theft that sets it apart from something owned by virtue of IP law. But in doing this you actually make my point for me. I'm suggesting that while the thief took a physical item from it's rightful owner, a person who claims a bit of knowledge under IP law is stealing it from the public. For you to continue to disagree you'd have to argue that the information was never the public's to begin with.

    Unfortunately, IP law does not give room for subsequent invention.

    Suppose you make thing A in 1990 and, say, patent it. If I come to this same idea in 1995, I cannot do anything with it even if I never heard of your work. It's gone, it's out of the realm of 'possible,' whereas it once was. In other words, it went from the public pool -- where anyone could have thought it up if they were bright enough -- to the private domain of the first person to do so. This is accomplished through IP law.

    It is with this logical sequence that I consider IP law in it's current manifestation to be "theft" that is no less heinous than the stealing of Principia. The only difference is social perception and legal application, which is arbitrary and demonstrably inconsistent.

    Finally, I realize it is easier to paint someone as a "troll" than mount a logical defense, but it makes you look foolish. Use it sparingly.

    --
    My .02,
    Limekiller
  146. Re:URGENT (OT): kterm doesn't close on exit by jeremyacole · · Score: 1

    alias exit="kill `ps -hp $$ -o ppid`"

    ;)

  147. OT math solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hi, In regards to
    x + y = 24
    x - y = 18

    I find the easiest way to solve this is to use a matrix.
    [mathies can correct me, because I forget all the details]
    You will need a 2X3 matrix because there are 3 "columns".
    The final column of the matrix will contain your answer when we are finished.
    1 1 |24
    1 -1 |18

    Now you "reduce" or "normalize" [can't remeber the word for it]
    so that the first part looks like
    1 0
    0 1
    and using row operations from linear algebra you change the 24 and 18 into X and Y respectively.

    I'm quite certain this isn't in Newton's book, so I'm going to post as anon, but I'm saskboy a friend of a friend whom you posted to his journal today.

  148. Good one! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Too bad you can't easily make an exact copy of a physical object, hey? (As opposed to a data file which can be copied an infinate number of times without depriving it's original owner of their copy.)

    IP Nerds fucking piss me off.

  149. OT: Math problem solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Hi! aWalrus posting anonymous here =) (yes, this is offtopic, but related to your journal post -- you should enable comments in there).

    Regarding
    x + y = 24
    x - y = 18

    There is a simple reasoned way of solving this thing. If both variables have the same values in both equations and spew those results, you should be able to sum the equations and the results as follows:
    (x+y)+(x-y) = 24+18

    then simplify like: x+x+y-y = 42
    2x=42
    x=21

    then, by substituting in the first of the initial equations, you'd get
    18+y=24
    y=3

    And that's it. This is the result of applying simple math rules to get more information about your variables. Nothing magical about it, but mathematicians somehow manage to make it sound really difficult. Good luck with the ETS if you take it!

    1. Re:OT: Math problem solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Sorry, that last part should read:

      21+y=24
      y=3

      my mistake =)

  150. The lesson here is: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...backup everything.

  151. Shallow omnipotence? by MisterSquid · · Score: 1

    Now I'm the one who is shame-faced: that's a really good point about the irrelevance of semantically meaningless arguments.

    However, I'm not sure I buy your dimunition of omnipotence. Omnipotence means "capable of doing everything," which is especialy true if we're talking about the omnipotence of God, also known as divine omnipotence. The problem is that such a proposition creates logical inconsistencies. It's not a problem of syntax; it's a problem of the condition of divine omnipotence.

    To say divine omnipotence means "able to do all that can be done" is neither divine nor omnipotent. Omnipotence is the means by which God works the "impossible," also known as miracles.

    So, while I grant your pointing out the irrelevance of my statement (if it is in fact semanticaly void), I don't accept that God's omnipotence is something as pedestrian as "that which can possibly be done."

    I mean, really, what kind of God are we talking about here?

    --
    blog
  152. DEAR MODERATORS (or, That'll learn me) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The first time I don't subtract my +1 bonus and I write a gaffe like the parent post . . .

    Please do mod the parent down if you can spare the points.

    :P

    --

    mistersquid

    This fake sig admits responsibilty but has the shelter of cowardice.

  153. I take the concept towards the notion by hackwrench · · Score: 1

    that God is the essence of all that is power, with destuction being a natural effect of power over the powerless.

  154. There are degrees to omnipotence by hackwrench · · Score: 1

    just as there are degrees to infinity. Most statements that are called semanticly meaningless can make more sense as a state machine that changes its state each time the statement is ran. for example:
    For "This statement is false"
    For no initial state the statement results in false, because the statement, initially is not false.
    For an initial state of false, the statement results in true.
    For an initial state of true, the statement results in false.

  155. Empirical proof by hackwrench · · Score: 1

    Every time I hear that, it seems to ignore empirical proof.

  156. Omniscience implies omnipotence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If one is omniscient this implies omnipotence. If you know everything you know how to achieve anything, which is the definition of omnipotence.

    1. Re:Omniscience implies omnipotence by 2short · · Score: 1

      Got to disagree. You could know that you can't achieve a particular thing.

  157. Re:Impossible Worlds by Pyrosophy · · Score: 1

    Modern logicians who work in something called "free logic" (anything is fair game to quantify over) as well as people called "dialethists" (who believe in a few true contradictions such as "This sentence is a lie.") entertain the idea of impossible worlds.

    However I think power still has to be defined over logical possibility even in these systems. So Leibniz's God wouldn't be in too much trouble even in these systems.

    Still, it's a good question, contrary to what you yourself and these other commentators might believe. Had a recent talk about a resurrection of a philosophy called Meinongianism which is currently waaaaaaaaaaay out of style. It postulates more existence predicates, so we exist and God might exist, but things like unicorns and manticores actually subsist in this system. Impossible worlds, presumably, could subsist (or absist, which I won't even go into) as well.

    Anyway, these things make your argument seem plausible, but you'd have to adopt a somewhat exotic metaphysics.

  158. It's just some Student... by nickclarke · · Score: 1

    ... who can't afford to buy a new copy!

  159. blue by spongman · · Score: 2
    whose sole motivation is the increase in its share price usually at the expense of its operating efficiency
    what color are the economics text books in your world?
  160. Bill Gates owns Da Vinci's Codex Leicester by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As a side bar Bill Gates bought the Codex for $30M in 1994. Maybe Bill just forgot who's
    library he was in.

  161. It's one of many by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Five minutes of online research indicates that there may be as many as 250 first-edition Principias--which, as someone else pointed out, is probably why it didn't make a very big splash in the media. Yes, it's criminal; no, it's not disastrous.

  162. Dammit by i_need_no_nick · · Score: 1
    I wish I'd thought of this when the story was still front-page stuff, but here goes...

    Let's hope the terrorists don't get a hold of that book. Anyone with a working knowledge of the topics discussed therein could manufacture any number of weapons with the aim of hurting or killing innocent civilians. Why, if there's anything in there about Newton's thought experiment, they might even get it into their evil heads to develop space-based weapons!

  163. Leibniz's best worlds vs cellular automata by frankie · · Score: 1, Offtopic
    Leibniz's argument which Voltaire ridicules is kinda neat. God is all knowing, all powerful, and all loving. [ . . . ] So this is the best of all possible worlds.

    Does anyone else out there believe that the game of Life has direct implications about the (theoretical) nature of God?

    In Life, the user is omniscient (you know all the rules and the state of every cell) and omnipotent (you can alter the rules and the cells at your discretion), and could be omni-agapic (as much as you feel like "loving" arrangments of cells in a binary grid). Nevertheless you cannot know the final state of an arbitrary structure, since the Life algorithm is Turing complete. You have to allow the game to play out its course and see what happens.

    The analogy to God is left as an exercise for the reader.
  164. oh, great. by msouth · · Score: 2

    now that the very laws of physics are in the hands of evidoers, it's only a matter of time before stuff starts flying off the desk, soup unstirs itself. etc.

    --
    Liberty uber alles.
  165. Newton RIP... by hackus · · Score: 2

    Ah Newton,

    I can remember sitting in a library, looking at rocket ships, and planets and stars when I was smaller.

    Now that I am simply small, what vision and dedication exists anymore in that classically romantic pursuit of truth and God that left a man deny all that was flesh?

    Oh Newton, inscribe that which God has put forth in the heavens and transcribe it for all to read, who could not see and were blind for all recorded human history before thy was born. You are the Master of all, Mathematics, Physics, Optics, Fluid Dynamics, Astronomy.

    Who has lived like thy has since? Thou was the first and last of your kind. When we are gone, the human race will not be forgotten, for Newton was here and stood upon our best and brightest and revealed peace and truth, in the pursuit of God, and placed our understanding in the heavens.

    Rest peacefully.

    Hackus

    --
    Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
  166. Re:URGENT (OT): kterm doesn't close on exit by IXI · · Score: 1

    Type "" and then "~.", repeat the last step if it doesn't work. Read man rsh if you want to know what you are doing. One reason why I prefer telnet over [rs]sh.

    --
    He saw some dirty arabs and fired. Too bad it was just some friendly kurds, BBC reporters and his fellow cowboys.
  167. The book is now found by malcy · · Score: 1

    http://lenta.ru/culture/2002/11/13/books/
    use babel

  168. Troll, n.: by achurch · · Score: 2

    Troll, n.: "A comment, deliberately overstating facts or including misleading information, intended to provoke heated responses." (paraphrased from vague recollection of a /. post a few years back)

    You asked why this incident should be considered any different than current IP laws. I answered, explaining that this incident has nothing to do with information of any kind, much less IP laws (which should have been obvious from reading the article). I happen to agree with you that there are problems with the way knowledge is handled in our society, but regardless, this case has nothing to do with them (nor is this story the proper place to argue about them); that's why I called your post a "troll".

  169. Update: Police have detained a suspect by Makarand · · Score: 1

    Police have taken into custody a woman suspect in connection with this theft.

  170. The thieves were caught. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    According to this article in Russian the thieves were caught on Tuesday. The fish is your friend.

  171. Sources on the street say it was... by mzo23 · · Score: 1

    Carmen Sandiego! But where in the world is she hmmm?

    --
    I don't have a sig, can I borrow yours?
  172. What what what what what? (defeat lamness filter) by Snork+Asaurus · · Score: 2
    A classic, and inspiration for Monty Python! About 20 years ago, a local radio station used to play the Goon Show on Saturday mornings. I never missed an episode. I can still hear it:

    Moriarty: Don't touch that Christmas Pudding or it will explode!

    (sound effect) KABOOM!!!

    Eccles: Ooooooooooohhhhhhhhhh.

    (OK, you had to be there).

    --
    Sigs are bad for your health.
  173. Last Post! by alpg · · Score: 1

    "Well," Brahma said, "even after ten thousand explanations, a fool is no
    wiser, but an intelligent man requires only two thousand five hundred."
    -- The Mahabharata.

    - this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...