12 May
2001
12 May
'01
3:06 p.m.
On Sat, 12 May 2001, Eric Chomko wrote:
...or because there are enough saps out there willing to pay an
overinflated price. :-)
--
Copyright (C) 2001 R. D. Davis The difference between humans & other animals:
All Rights Reserved an unnatural belief that we're above Nature &
rdd(a)perqlogic.com 410-744-4900 her other creatures, using dogma to justify such
http://www.perqlogic.com/rdd beliefs and to justify much human cruelty.
Iggy Drougge wrote:
> Of course they would be highly valued, but my
point is not whether
> they are, but whether they should.
I see Iggy's point; he's asking, as I'm wondering, what logical
difference does it make whether or not some famous artist actually
touched something. Furthermore, I've seen much more attractive
paintings than the Mona Lisa sell for much less than the Mona Lisa
would sell for.
Giving this additional thought, ss not the Mona Lisa a rather
unattractive painting of a woman who isn't particularly attractive?
Now, to get back on topic, let's apply this to computers. For
example, why should an Apple I or an Altair sell for more than. let's
say, a Sun 4/330? That makes no sense; the Apple I is much slower and
has fewer graphics capabilities, etc.
Whether something or anything "should" WRT
the world is basically a "why"
question.
A wise man once told me that the answer to every "why" question is
"because."
Why did he say that? Was it because the poor chap had a limited
vocabulary?
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.