But what i
don't 'get' is why a stock machine is somehow 'special'
becuase it was used for a particular task, when any other machine off the
same production line would have done just as well.
If I was visiting a museum, I would be much more interested to see a
working example of the sysem (prefereablly running the rogiianl software)
than to see the machine that was actually used, not operational.
I think it's fairly safe to say, then, that yours is not a typical
response. My guess would be that most people would be far more
Since when have my views on anything been 'typical' :-)
interested in a particular artefact that had had some
famous role than
in another, identical one that was never involved in anything
interesting but was in full working order.
I think what itcomes down to _for me_ is is there anything special about
the 'famous' artefact other than what it was once used for?
A commonly quoted example is the pen (typewriter/word processor)
used by a famous author. Do you really think his novels/plays/whatever
would have been any different if he'd used a different pen? If not (and I
storngly suspect that's the case), then there really is nothing amazing
aobut that pen.
E.g. - just as a hypothetical:
"This is Lord Montgomery's personal tank from the North African
campaign" (cool and interesting) versus "here is a perfectly working
model FYQZ37-B-142/Z type C tank that has never been to war and was
never deployed on active service".
If there was nothign unusual about Lord Montgomery's tank, then I have to
say I'd prefer the latter. But if the former was modified, had different
weapmns, or a different aiming system, or ... then that makes it interesting.
-tony