People have officially lost their minds.

  • 57 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Posted by moloch999 (155 posts) -

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2014/03/24/camera-used-on-moon-landing-sold-for-75848/

This camera sold for almost 1 million dollars when you can get a camera 100 times better than that for 500 dollars at best buy.

#2 Posted by toast_burner (22959 posts) -

And can you believe that people pay thousands for paintings when you can get paint at an art supply shop for only a few quid!

#3 Posted by turtlethetaffer (17257 posts) -

Why should I pay 60 bucks for a high quality video game when I can make my own?

#4 Edited by moloch999 (155 posts) -

@toast_burner said:

And can you believe that people pay thousands for paintings when you can get paint at an art supply shop for only a few quid!

Pretty sure that camera didn't paint any mona lisas

#5 Posted by elkoldo (1619 posts) -

@turtlethetaffer: Why pay when you can pirate?!

#6 Edited by turtlethetaffer (17257 posts) -

@elkoldo: Hot damn, now you're onto something! We should all just pirate everything! Screw money, screw the Man, I want everything for free!

#7 Edited by moloch999 (155 posts) -

@turtlethetaffer said:

@elkoldo: Hot damn, now you're onto something! We should all just pirate everything! Screw money, screw the Man, I want everything for free!

Without currency, we go to a barter system, and i feel sorry for the poor sucker who paid 1 million for a camera that probably doesn't even work.

#8 Posted by comp_atkins (32240 posts) -

is this even a topic? seriously?

#9 Posted by moloch999 (155 posts) -

@comp_atkins said:

is this even a topic? seriously?

This is about the atrophying value of common sense, and the value of the sweat on our brows. Our country is going broke, people are starving, and we have ignorant people buying old cameras that probably don't even work.

#10 Posted by JML897 (33133 posts) -

@moloch999 said:

@comp_atkins said:

is this even a topic? seriously?

This is about the atrophying value of common sense, and the value of the sweat on our brows. Our country is going broke, people are starving, and we have ignorant people buying old cameras that probably don't even work.

Did the person who bought the camera buy it with stolen money or something? If not then I don't see what the problem is

#11 Edited by JML897 (33133 posts) -

@moloch999 said:

@comp_atkins said:

is this even a topic? seriously?

This is about the atrophying value of common sense, and the value of the sweat on our brows. Our country is going broke, people are starving, and we have ignorant people buying old cameras that probably don't even work.

Did the person who bought the camera buy it with taxpayer money or something? If not then I don't see what the problem is

#12 Edited by wis3boi (32098 posts) -

Yes, TC has lost his mind and needs to stop making threads

#13 Edited by Chaos_HL21 (5288 posts) -

While it is true modern camera are around 230,000 miles better than that camera, and you can buy them for much less than $500; however they don't have the same history to them.

#14 Posted by ad1x2 (5872 posts) -

I can assume that you are either trolling or have absolutely no idea what historical value is.

#15 Posted by jun_aka_pekto (17911 posts) -

@JML897 said:

@moloch999 said:

@comp_atkins said:

is this even a topic? seriously?

This is about the atrophying value of common sense, and the value of the sweat on our brows. Our country is going broke, people are starving, and we have ignorant people buying old cameras that probably don't even work.

Did the person who bought the camera buy it with taxpayer money or something? If not then I don't see what the problem is

My view as well. Whatever they do with their money is their perogative.

#16 Edited by MrGeezer (57269 posts) -

Not sure about that particular model, but generally speaking Hasselblads are excellent cameras. They are indeed better than many of the crappy modern cameras available today.

Which is sort of irrelevant. Whoever bought that thing obviously has no intention of ever actually using it.

#17 Posted by MonsieurX (32197 posts) -

TC is stupid

#18 Edited by Jankarcop (10864 posts) -

It has extremely important historical value, more so than paintings that go for dozens of millions+ ..... (first time humanity reached moon vs. some drawing)

"Why buy the Mona Lisa when you can just print it online for .1cents!"

#19 Posted by DNA-Hole (43 posts) -

@MonsieurX said:

TC is stupid

That just gives stupid people a bad name. The TC is in a class by himself, thank Christ.

#20 Posted by outworld222 (2543 posts) -

@Jankarcop said:

It has extremely important historical value, more so than paintings that go for dozens of millions+ ..... (first time humanity reached moon vs. some drawing)

"Why buy the Mona Lisa when you can just print it online for .1cents!"

I believe I can answer that. It's because the rarity of an object that is an immensely important artifact trumps printing Mona Lisa on a Xerox printing paper multiple times, as that would decrease the value of the picture because there would be more than or equal to 10 Xerox copies in the specified market.

#21 Posted by moloch999 (155 posts) -

@outworld222 said:

@Jankarcop said:

It has extremely important historical value, more so than paintings that go for dozens of millions+ ..... (first time humanity reached moon vs. some drawing)

"Why buy the Mona Lisa when you can just print it online for .1cents!"

I believe I can answer that. It's because the rarity of an object that is an immensely important artifact trumps printing Mona Lisa on a Xerox printing paper multiple times, as that would decrease the value of the picture because there would be more than or equal to 10 Xerox copies in the specified market.

The Mona Lisa is only worth money because it was the first woman ever painted.

#22 Posted by Master_Live (16141 posts) -

@moloch999 said:

@comp_atkins said:

is this even a topic? seriously?

This is about the atrophying value of common sense, and the value of the sweat on our brows. Our country is going broke, people are starving, and we have ignorant people buying old cameras that probably don't even work.

Let them starve.

#23 Posted by Gaming-Planet (14826 posts) -

Because everyone wants to be a special snowflake.

#24 Posted by foxhound_fox (91392 posts) -

Supply and demand.

How many other cameras are there that have been to the Moon and come back?

#25 Posted by LJS9502_basic (153510 posts) -

@moloch999 said:

@turtlethetaffer said:

@elkoldo: Hot damn, now you're onto something! We should all just pirate everything! Screw money, screw the Man, I want everything for free!

Without currency, we go to a barter system, and i feel sorry for the poor sucker who paid 1 million for a camera that probably doesn't even work.

Oh for fuck's sake...he didn't buy it to use it.

#26 Posted by outworld222 (2543 posts) -

@moloch999 said:

@outworld222 said:

@Jankarcop said:

It has extremely important historical value, more so than paintings that go for dozens of millions+ ..... (first time humanity reached moon vs. some drawing)

"Why buy the Mona Lisa when you can just print it online for .1cents!"

I believe I can answer that. It's because the rarity of an object that is an immensely important artifact trumps printing Mona Lisa on a Xerox printing paper multiple times, as that would decrease the value of the picture because there would be more than or equal to 10 Xerox copies in the specified market.

The Mona Lisa is only worth money because it was the first woman ever painted.

You have got to be the stupidest person on the internet. I nominate you.

#27 Posted by GreySeal9 (25990 posts) -

TC is a troll, guys.

#28 Edited by moloch999 (155 posts) -

@outworld222 said:

@moloch999 said:

@outworld222 said:

@Jankarcop said:

It has extremely important historical value, more so than paintings that go for dozens of millions+ ..... (first time humanity reached moon vs. some drawing)

"Why buy the Mona Lisa when you can just print it online for .1cents!"

I believe I can answer that. It's because the rarity of an object that is an immensely important artifact trumps printing Mona Lisa on a Xerox printing paper multiple times, as that would decrease the value of the picture because there would be more than or equal to 10 Xerox copies in the specified market.

The Mona Lisa is only worth money because it was the first woman ever painted.

You have got to be the stupidest person on the internet. I nominate you.

It's a well known fact she was. Learn your history.

#29 Posted by outworld222 (2543 posts) -

@moloch999 said:

@outworld222 said:

@moloch999 said:

@outworld222 said:

@Jankarcop said:

It has extremely important historical value, more so than paintings that go for dozens of millions+ ..... (first time humanity reached moon vs. some drawing)

"Why buy the Mona Lisa when you can just print it online for .1cents!"

I believe I can answer that. It's because the rarity of an object that is an immensely important artifact trumps printing Mona Lisa on a Xerox printing paper multiple times, as that would decrease the value of the picture because there would be more than or equal to 10 Xerox copies in the specified market.

The Mona Lisa is only worth money because it was the first woman ever painted.

You have got to be the stupidest person on the internet. I nominate you.

It's a well known fact she was. Learn your history.

Ya?

1400s Botticelli tempera painting of a young woman

Who's the one that needs to learn History now?

#30 Posted by moloch999 (155 posts) -

@outworld222 said:

@moloch999 said:

@outworld222 said:

@moloch999 said:

@outworld222 said:

@Jankarcop said:

It has extremely important historical value, more so than paintings that go for dozens of millions+ ..... (first time humanity reached moon vs. some drawing)

"Why buy the Mona Lisa when you can just print it online for .1cents!"

I believe I can answer that. It's because the rarity of an object that is an immensely important artifact trumps printing Mona Lisa on a Xerox printing paper multiple times, as that would decrease the value of the picture because there would be more than or equal to 10 Xerox copies in the specified market.

The Mona Lisa is only worth money because it was the first woman ever painted.

You have got to be the stupidest person on the internet. I nominate you.

It's a well known fact she was. Learn your history.

Ya?

1400s Botticelli tempera painting of a young woman

Who's the one that needs to learn History now?

Pretty sure that's half a woman, where's her other side?

#31 Posted by outworld222 (2543 posts) -

@moloch999 said:

@outworld222 said:

@moloch999 said:

@outworld222 said:

@moloch999 said:

@outworld222 said:

@Jankarcop said:

It has extremely important historical value, more so than paintings that go for dozens of millions+ ..... (first time humanity reached moon vs. some drawing)

"Why buy the Mona Lisa when you can just print it online for .1cents!"

I believe I can answer that. It's because the rarity of an object that is an immensely important artifact trumps printing Mona Lisa on a Xerox printing paper multiple times, as that would decrease the value of the picture because there would be more than or equal to 10 Xerox copies in the specified market.

The Mona Lisa is only worth money because it was the first woman ever painted.

You have got to be the stupidest person on the internet. I nominate you.

It's a well known fact she was. Learn your history.

Ya?

1400s Botticelli tempera painting of a young woman

Who's the one that needs to learn History now?

Pretty sure that's half a woman, where's her other side?

tsk.

#32 Posted by Master_Live (16141 posts) -

@moloch999 said:

@outworld222 said:

@moloch999 said:

@outworld222 said:

@moloch999 said:

@outworld222 said:

@Jankarcop said:

It has extremely important historical value, more so than paintings that go for dozens of millions+ ..... (first time humanity reached moon vs. some drawing)

"Why buy the Mona Lisa when you can just print it online for .1cents!"

I believe I can answer that. It's because the rarity of an object that is an immensely important artifact trumps printing Mona Lisa on a Xerox printing paper multiple times, as that would decrease the value of the picture because there would be more than or equal to 10 Xerox copies in the specified market.

The Mona Lisa is only worth money because it was the first woman ever painted.

You have got to be the stupidest person on the internet. I nominate you.

It's a well known fact she was. Learn your history.

Ya?

1400s Botticelli tempera painting of a young woman

Who's the one that needs to learn History now?

Pretty sure that's half a woman, where's her other side?

lol.

#33 Posted by The-Apostle (12193 posts) -

Joke topic is joke topic.

#34 Posted by moloch999 (155 posts) -

@The-Apostle said:

Joke topic is joke topic.

Not a joke.

#35 Posted by The-Apostle (12193 posts) -

@moloch999 said:

@The-Apostle said:

Joke topic is joke topic.

Not a joke.

Wait... You're actually SERIOUS?!

Dude just bought it because he's a collector. He had no intention of ever actually using it. >_>

#36 Posted by moloch999 (155 posts) -

@The-Apostle said:

@moloch999 said:

@The-Apostle said:

Joke topic is joke topic.

Not a joke.

Wait... You're actually SERIOUS?!

Dude just bought it because he's a collector. He had no intention of ever actually using it. >_>

People collect stamps and coins, not old video cameras.

#37 Posted by The-Apostle (12193 posts) -
@moloch999 said:

@The-Apostle said:

@moloch999 said:

@The-Apostle said:

Joke topic is joke topic.

Not a joke.

Wait... You're actually SERIOUS?!

Dude just bought it because he's a collector. He had no intention of ever actually using it. >_>

People collect stamps and coins, not old video cameras.

And this is why one should never do drugs. >_>

#38 Posted by Motokid6 (6494 posts) -

@moloch999: That old video camera was on the f***ing Moon! It took pictures of people walking on the Moon. If i had the cash id gladly buy one.

#39 Posted by The-Apostle (12193 posts) -

@Motokid6 said:

@moloch999: That old video camera was on the f***ing Moon! It took pictures of people walking on the Moon. If i had the cash id gladly buy one.

TC is doing a very good job trolling people I guess...

#40 Posted by MakeMeaSammitch (4889 posts) -

Look at modern art.

People actually pay for that shit

#41 Posted by The-Apostle (12193 posts) -
@MakeMeaSammitch said:

Look at modern art.

People actually pay for that shit


I would say it depends on what the "art" is. For example, I once went to an art museum for a research paper (art class). I saw a pickup truck there. The bed was full of what I would consider trash and other crap. I don't think of something like that as art. I also don't think graffiti should be considered art, yet I've seen that at art museums as well.

#42 Posted by moloch999 (155 posts) -

@Motokid6 said:

@moloch999: That old video camera was on the f***ing Moon! It took pictures of people walking on the Moon. If i had the cash id gladly buy one.

We never landed on the moon.

#43 Edited by GreySeal9 (25990 posts) -

@moloch999 said:

@outworld222 said:

@moloch999 said:

@outworld222 said:

@moloch999 said:

@outworld222 said:

@Jankarcop said:

It has extremely important historical value, more so than paintings that go for dozens of millions+ ..... (first time humanity reached moon vs. some drawing)

"Why buy the Mona Lisa when you can just print it online for .1cents!"

I believe I can answer that. It's because the rarity of an object that is an immensely important artifact trumps printing Mona Lisa on a Xerox printing paper multiple times, as that would decrease the value of the picture because there would be more than or equal to 10 Xerox copies in the specified market.

The Mona Lisa is only worth money because it was the first woman ever painted.

You have got to be the stupidest person on the internet. I nominate you.

It's a well known fact she was. Learn your history.

Ya?

1400s Botticelli tempera painting of a young woman

Who's the one that needs to learn History now?

Pretty sure that's half a woman, where's her other side?

ROFL!

#44 Posted by DarthGumballs (209 posts) -

@wis3boi said:

Yes, TC has lost his mind and needs to stop making threads

+1

#45 Posted by darkmark91 (2938 posts) -

Well at least that camera has a lot of BIG historic value to it. Tbh I thought that was kind of cheap for it to be sold, I was expecting a couple millions. After all, this painting was sold for about $44 Million...

Yes that is right, and here is the source.

#46 Edited by Celldrax (14863 posts) -
@moloch999 said:

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2014/03/24/camera-used-on-moon-landing-sold-for-75848/

This camera sold for almost 1 million dollars when you can get a camera 100 times better than that for 500 dollars at best buy.

You're too obvious, m8.

#47 Edited by The-Apostle (12193 posts) -

@moloch999 said:

@Motokid6 said:

@moloch999: That old video camera was on the f***ing Moon! It took pictures of people walking on the Moon. If i had the cash id gladly buy one.

We never landed on the moon.

Ahh... I suspected you might believe that... >_>

lol

#48 Edited by The-Apostle (12193 posts) -
@darkmark91 said:

Well at least that camera has a lot of BIG historic value to it. Tbh I thought that was kind of cheap for it to be sold, I was expecting a couple millions. After all, this painting was sold for about $44 Million...

Yes that is right, and here is the source.

LOLWTF?! That's just a poorly drawn line (I say poorly-drawn due to the smudged edges).

I'd maybe pay 10 bucks for it, if that. Personally, I think it's a worthless painting some child can make.

#49 Edited by BeardMaster (1686 posts) -
@moloch999 said:

@toast_burner said:

And can you believe that people pay thousands for paintings when you can get paint at an art supply shop for only a few quid!

Pretty sure that camera didn't paint any mona lisas

Well why would anyone pay exorbitant amounts of money for the original mona lisa when you can get reproductions for a couple bucks that are far superior and dont have cracking and flaking paint?

#50 Posted by MrGeezer (57269 posts) -

@darkmark91 said:

Well at least that camera has a lot of BIG historic value to it. Tbh I thought that was kind of cheap for it to be sold, I was expecting a couple millions. After all, this painting was sold for about $44 Million...

Yes that is right, and here is the source.

What's the significance of that painting (historic or otherwise)?

I'm just saying, you're defending spending almost a million dollars on a 45 year old pile of metal, glass, and plastic that probably doesn't even work any more. You're doing this based on historic value, as in you're stating that its value is what it REPRESENTS rather than what it IS.

So, with that in mind, what is the contextual value of that painting? It's easy to reduce it, to say "it's just paint on canvas" or "it's just blue with a white line down the middle", but by that same logic we could reduce any historic item to the value of its bare ingredients. The fact is that if a painting sells for $44 million, then SOMEONE obviously sees some kind of symbolic value in it. How is that any different than the symbolic value that is attached to a half-century old camera that sells for almost a million dollars?