Campaign Saves Unique Turing Archive

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Campaign Saves Unique Turing Archive

Posted by samzenpus on Sunday February 27, 2011 @05:36PM from the posterity-plan dept.

99luftballon writes "A near-complete collection of Alan Turing's offprints have been bought for Bletchley Park following an online campaign and funds from Google and the UK government. They will go on display in the next few months. From the article: 'The collection contains offprints of 15 of Turing's 18 published papers assembled by his friend and colleague Max Newman. It includes Turing's first published paper, as well as his initial plans for computing and artificial intelligence.'"

37 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

So.... by Stormy+Dragon · 2011-02-27 17:50 · Score: 1

This collection is only recursively enumerable?
1. Re:So.... by yoldapirate · 2011-02-27 17:59 · Score: 0
  
  Don't know, it would take me exponential time to figure it out...
2. Re:So.... by burisch_research · 2011-02-27 18:06 · Score: 1
  
  All you need to do is evaluate the parent comment.
  
  --
  char*f="char*f=%c%s%c;main(){printf(f,34,f,34);}";main(){printf(f,34,f,34);}
I guess ... by burisch_research · 2011-02-27 18:05 · Score: 5, Funny

I guess this collection is Turing near-complete.

--
char*f="char*f=%c%s%c;main(){printf(f,34,f,34);}";main(){printf(f,34,f,34);}
1. Re:I guess ... by Sulphur · 2011-02-27 18:33 · Score: 2
  
  I guess this collection is Turing near-complete.
  I'm still studying for my Turing test.
2. Re:I guess ... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-27 18:54 · Score: 0
  
  That Turing was so prolific, one could almost say he was a MACHINE.
  A Turing Machine? No? I'll get my coat.
3. Re:I guess ... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-27 19:59 · Score: 0
  
  I guess this collection is Turing near-complete.
  I'm still studying for my Turing test.
  You Fail !
Good on Google by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-27 18:37 · Score: 1, Interesting

Every once in a while I notice that Google hasn't taken their eye off the ball. They have achieved status as some of the most respected players in the industry. Why? Because they actually care a bit about its history. Most everyone else is solely interested in the last quarter, and whether the shareholders will be pleased. M$ couldn't give the slightest sniff about Turing, same with IBM, HP, Oracle, and most of the rest. I like making money, but not necessarily to the exclusion of all else. I can't say the same about those I've mentioned. The hard-core business types will offer "well, there is nothing without money", and that is what separates the pioneers in any industry, the innovators in any industry, and the captains in any industry, from the outsourced, half-baked, half-cooked, humdrum, rest.
1. Re:Good on Google by Enter+the+Shoggoth · 2011-02-27 19:33 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Every once in a while I notice that Google hasn't taken their eye off the ball. They have achieved status as some of the most respected players in the industry. Why? Because they actually care a bit about its history. Most everyone else is solely interested in the last quarter, and whether the shareholders will be pleased. M$ couldn't give the slightest sniff about Turing, same with IBM, HP, Oracle, and most of the rest. I like making money, but not necessarily to the exclusion of all else. I can't say the same about those I've mentioned. The hard-core business types will offer "well, there is nothing without money", and that is what separates the pioneers in any industry, the innovators in any industry, and the captains in any industry, from the outsourced, half-baked, half-cooked, humdrum, rest.
  Possibly true - but I'd argue that's because Sergey and Larry still run Google. I strongly suspect that if Bill Hewlett and David Packard were still alive they would probably care, (leisure suit) Larry Ellison might also care although since he hasn't given any money in this case who can say for sure, hell even Bill Gates might care but he's no longer running the show and I'm pretty sure the Ballmer monkey wouldn't care.
  In short once Sergey and Larry retire I doubt Google will give a flying monkey's arse either.
  
  --
  Andy Warhol got it right / Everybody gets the limelight
  Andy Warhol got it wrong / Fifteen minutes is too long.
2. Re:Good on Google by ReedYoung · 2011-02-28 01:11 · Score: 2
  
  If Gates really cared in that way, would he have stepped aside? And left the shop to "the Ballmer monkey"? Hewlett & Packard I'll grant you since they create a great company that was the favorite place to work of all IT guys, and it took Carly Fiorina to undo their work. But Ellison & Gates? I just can't find it in my heart to extend any benefit of any doubt for those two.
  
  --
  "I can't imagine how things could get any worse!" (some guy) "That could just be failure of imaginatioÂn on your p
3. Re:Good on Google by Enter+the+Shoggoth · 2011-02-28 02:07 · Score: 2
  
  If Gates really cared in that way, would he have stepped aside? And left the shop to "the Ballmer monkey"? Hewlett & Packard I'll grant you since they create a great company that was the favorite place to work of all IT guys, and it took Carly Fiorina to undo their work. But Ellison & Gates? I just can't find it in my heart to extend any benefit of any doubt for those two.
  Don't get me wrong... I'm no fan of Gates (quite the opposite) but I'm willing to at least acknowledge that he started off as a geek unlike Ballmer. As for Larry Ellison he occasionally has amusing things to say (eg. http://news.cnet.com/8301-13953_3-10052188-80.html) and unlike Jobs, Gates, etc. he seems to actually take the time to enjoy his billions (yaht races) which gives him a couple of brownie points in my book (I get the impression that the others just like to sit at home and count the money). OTOH I think that the following defintion is apt:
  ORACLE = One Raving Asshole Called Larry Ellison
  
  --
  Andy Warhol got it right / Everybody gets the limelight
  Andy Warhol got it wrong / Fifteen minutes is too long.
4. Re:Good on Google by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-03 08:39 · Score: 0
  
  Bill Gates did buy the original Leornado Da Vinci's notebooks and made them available for free and is doing everything to preserve the original works. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonardo_da_Vinci
sweet by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-27 19:14 · Score: -1

oh em gee, i am so happy... wait, no i dont give a fuck.
1. Re:sweet by EndoplasmicRidiculus · 2011-02-27 19:32 · Score: 0
  
  You give enough of a fuck to huff and puff. You must be steaming mad that Slashdot isn't catering to your tastes.
2. Re:sweet by aiht · 2011-02-27 19:41 · Score: 0
  
  Sorry, off-topic - but your username looks like the name of a Harry Potter spell. :-)
  I'm not quite sure what it should do, though... any ideas?
3. Re:sweet by SheeEttin · 2011-02-27 19:51 · Score: 0
  
  https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Endoplasmic_reticulum
4. Re:sweet by Sulphur · 2011-02-27 21:01 · Score: 0
  
  https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Endoplasmic_reticulum
  
  Ridiculous : The spell for a Boggart (Celtic creature or HP shape shifter). The endoplasmic reticulum occurs in three shapes and varies with the amount of synthesis.
5. Re:sweet by Muad'Dave · 2011-02-28 00:46 · Score: 0
  
  Of course if you see it with a mohawk haircut, vicious boots, and a chainsaw, it's endoplasmatic reticulum.
  
  --
  Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
6. Re:sweet by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-28 00:49 · Score: -1
  
  No, the spell is "Riddikulus"
What are they paying for? by kurls · 2011-02-27 20:09 · Score: 1

I understand that people like to be able to touch history - but I find it a bit ironic that people are willing to pay so much for the physical paper and ink these were written on. The value of the papers is in the ideas, and those can be downloaded for free - thanks to many of the ideas in those papers.
Waste of money based on big misunderstanding by mikejuk · 2011-02-27 20:53 · Score: 2, Informative

This is crazy - so much money for papers that are available on the web for free and are simply offprints of journal articles - none of which have gone missing from the usual sources. You can even buy original copies from the web for tens of pounds. It seems this is a knee jerk reaction and a missunderstanding of the term "papers" - these are not litterary papers or personal papers but scientific papers with a few scribble that are in the main not even Turings! see: http://www.i-programmer.info/news/82-heritage/2043-purchase-of-turing-papers-secured-for-bletchley-park-.html
1. Re:Waste of money based on big misunderstanding by yahwotqa · 2011-02-27 22:32 · Score: 2
  
  It's the same reason the original Mona Lisa painting is so valued, even though you can look at its copies for free anywhere.
  Of course, not everyone would be interested in owning the original - everyone has different tastes and preferences.
2. Re:Waste of money based on big misunderstanding by mikejuk · 2011-02-27 23:27 · Score: 2
  
  No it isn't - they have just bought copies. What is an original of a printed article there are thousands of copies. Back in the days before the web academics got offprints to send to people who were intereted - they were just extra prints of the journal article. There is very little original about them.
3. Re:Waste of money based on big misunderstanding by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-27 23:43 · Score: 0
  
  Yes you can see digital copies of these on the online archive but -these- are unique in that they have a personal physical attachement to Alan and/or Max.
  Simon Greenish is a savvy chap - of course he knows you can get these online, print copies etc.
4. Re:Waste of money based on big misunderstanding by mikejuk · 2011-02-28 00:38 · Score: 1
  
  I don' think this is correct. Turing handed them over to Max yes and then Max read them and made notes. This was what happened to offprints. I don't think that this justifies the cost in any way. I think Simon Greenish got pushed on the bandwaggon to buy them. It was very difficult and still is to get anyone to actually listen and take a look at what has just been bought. But to be clear you think some pieces of paper that Turing touched are worth hundreds of thousands of pounds? If so this is getting close to a religious act... Keeping in mind that you can view the content of said papers are online and even buy the same offprints on the internet for a few tens of pounds (probably gone up since I first looked due to the crazy prices paid).
5. Re:Waste of money based on big misunderstanding by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-28 01:05 · Score: 0
  
  No, you could say it's like paying a lot of money for L.H.O.O.Q (which, whatever it actually is, appears to be a cheap print of the Mona Lisa which Duchamp scribbled on). But I think it's more like paying a lot of money for a photocopy of L.H.O.O.Q that Damien Hurst scribbled some notes on while studying at Goldsmiths.
  It's just. If someone offered it to a museum for free, they should consider whether it helps pad out some other exhibit. But to spend so much... crazy.
6. Re:Waste of money based on big misunderstanding by mikejuk · 2011-02-28 01:11 · Score: 1
  
  The attachement of these offprints to Turing is far less than any of the artworks to their artists that are being quoted. This is very different.... these are offprints and Turing simply recieved them in the post and handed them out to people he wanted to read them.
7. Re:Waste of money based on big misunderstanding by crossword.bob · 2011-02-28 01:24 · Score: 2
  
  According to the BBC version of the story: "There are handwritten notes by Turing on them and one of them has the signature of his mother on it." which I think offer them some uniqueness. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12575029
8. Re:Waste of money based on big misunderstanding by pbhj · 2011-02-28 01:36 · Score: 1
  
  Who's accountable for this? £200k of public money for what amounts to a novelty - nothing of value was saved. Crazy indeed.
  Quite a coup by the owners of those copies of publicly published papers.
9. Re:Waste of money based on big misunderstanding by mikejuk · 2011-02-28 02:22 · Score: 1
  
  The BBC story simply repeated the other stories - no one went and looked at what was in the bundle to be sold
10. Re:Waste of money based on big misunderstanding by mikejuk · 2011-02-28 02:25 · Score: 1
  
  Yes I agree - perhaps we should start keeping old offprints just in case. see: http://www.i-programmer.info/news/82-heritage/1616-christies-sells-apple-i-but-not-the-turing-papers.html
11. Re:Waste of money based on big misunderstanding by Raenex · 2011-02-28 02:35 · Score: 1
  
  This is very different.... these are offprints and Turing simply recieved them in the post and handed them out to people he wanted to read them.
  Ooh, he touched them! Surely that makes them worth... nope, still nothing.
Go by jamej · 2011-02-27 23:01 · Score: -1, Offtopic

Go. Make friends in your chosen profession. Bring plenty of business cards - collect plenty of business cards. Keep them organized and make an effort to keep in touch. Learn from others. Put it on your resume. Go, even if it hurts. Go to at least one professional conference per year and repeat. This advice is from someone who just retired at age 53. Good luck. r/ jim
1. Re:Go by rbarreira · 2011-02-27 23:22 · Score: 1
  
  I think you wanted to post that in another story.
  
  --
  
  The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
Summary has a slight error by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-28 03:38 · Score: 0

'The collection contains offprints of 15 of Turing's 18 published papers assembled by his friend and colleague Max Newman. It includes Turing's first published paper, as well as his initial plans for computing and artificial intelligence.'"
Actually his first published paper was to his colleague Max.
It reads: "Hellllooooooo Newman"
Notes to von Hacklheber by Infiniti2000 · 2011-02-28 04:28 · Score: 1

Any notes in the margins to Rudy von Hacklheber?
Why haven't blacks invented anything? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-28 04:45 · Score: -1

Anything that even remotely compares to what whites have invented?