13 May
2001
13 May
'01
3:02 p.m.
Iggy Drougge wrote:
There are many fools based upon your assessment. Did you know that Gates purchased
a painting for $30million a few years ago? Is he an utter fool? This is not
directly related
to the arguement but is quite on-topic for the group and this particular thread.
Okay, two points...
Gates is worth what, $50billion? Half that? Maybe more or less? Let's use
$30billion to
make a point. Ratio $30million to $30billion is 1 to 1000. If someone has a net
worth of
$300K, then the 1 to 1000 ratio puts their expeniture at $300. Would you spend
$300
for a "rare" computer (forget panitings for the moment)? Do you see the point?
To
Gates
spending $30million is not unlike a $300 lay out for us poor slobs. Its obscene I
know, but
it is what it is. The worst part is that I'd be hard pressed to show I got $300K
in personal
wealth. :(
The second point is, suppose an organization like a museum or foundation raise
enough
money to make a purchase like one for a rare painting, is that such a bad thing?
They
put it on display for the public to see. Is this a ship of fools in your book?
Agreed. So why would a replica of a painting be any different than the replica of
a computer?
Eric Chomko skrev:
Thank you.
Pardon me for jumping in...
By all means.
Iggy Drougge wrote:
> Sellam Ismail skrev:
>
> >On 12 May 2001, Iggy Drougge wrote:
>
> >> Da Vinci's greatness as an artist stemmed IOW from his ability to
> >> produce great works of art. A work of art is a work of art even if
> >> mass-produced, the last century has taught us as much.
>
> >Abstractly, yes. The original is a tangible product of the man, hence
> >it's value relative to copies.
>
> Are copies less tangible?
No, more tangible, and that is the point! When
speaking of rarity and value
one deals with supply and demand. The demand for copies of originals can
always met, therefore the price is low. The demand for a unique item will
drive the price of the item up as long as more than one person wants it.
My point is that Mona Lisa isn't rare since there are reproductions. Anyone
who'd pay millions more for the "original" is an utter fool.
Why is it like that? Because!
> >> But then that is metaphysics, and
should we really invest that much
> >> money into something which essentially would be a golden calf?
>
> >A golden calf, as in idol worshipping? Is this becoming religious? I
> >hope not. Things connect us to the past. Perhaps you keep a memento that
> >reminds you of a dead relative, for example? Or maybe you're an
> >emotionless bastard and you don't, in which case you can't understand my
> >point?
>
> I'd go for the second. Bastards don't have emotional ties to their
> relatives.
> =)
>
> >> But of course it can! It's built from the same plans and offers the
> >> same functionality.
>
> >And it has all the historical significance that everything "Made in
> >Taiwan" has. Yes, of course!
>
> It doesn't matter whether it's built in Taiwan or the Czech republic as
> long as it's according to the plans.
That's not exactly correct when trying to
determine the value of something.
By your own arguement, no one here should collect
an old computer based upon
functionality, as I can buy a new one than can out perform the old ones.
Therefore,
no one should bother with older ones regardless of model or type.
In what way can any computer outperform another? Every computer is unique in
its own sense, isn't that why we collect several?
We don't use computers to run benchmarks. At least not most of the time.
True, but I think I missed the point of that.
Eric
--
En ligne avec Thor 2.6a.
"Real life is full of idiots, and tons of ads. I don't see how IRC is any
different, other than a lot more people want to have sex with you."
-- m3000