People have officially lost their minds.

  • 57 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for moloch999
#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.

Avatar image for toast_burner
#2 Posted by toast_burner (24930 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!

Avatar image for turtlethetaffer
#3 Posted by turtlethetaffer (18694 posts) -

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

Avatar image for moloch999
#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

Avatar image for elkoldo
#5 Posted by elkoldo (1800 posts) -

@turtlethetaffer: Why pay when you can pirate?!

Avatar image for turtlethetaffer
#6 Edited by turtlethetaffer (18694 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!

Avatar image for moloch999
#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.

Avatar image for comp_atkins
#8 Posted by comp_atkins (34678 posts) -

is this even a topic? seriously?

Avatar image for moloch999
#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.

Avatar image for JML897
#10 Posted by JML897 (33134 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

Avatar image for JML897
#11 Edited by JML897 (33134 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

Avatar image for wis3boi
#12 Edited by wis3boi (32507 posts) -

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

Avatar image for Chaos_HL21
#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.

Avatar image for ad1x2
#14 Posted by ad1x2 (6706 posts) -

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

Avatar image for jun_aka_pekto
#15 Posted by jun_aka_pekto (23421 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.

Avatar image for MrGeezer
#16 Edited by MrGeezer (59292 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.

Avatar image for MonsieurX
#17 Posted by MonsieurX (37215 posts) -

TC is stupid

Avatar image for Jankarcop
#18 Edited by Jankarcop (11056 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!"

Avatar image for DNA-Hole
#19 Posted by DNA-Hole (49 posts) -

@MonsieurX said:

TC is stupid

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

Avatar image for outworld222
#20 Posted by outworld222 (2876 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.

Avatar image for moloch999
#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.

Avatar image for Master_Live
#22 Posted by Master_Live (18821 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.

Avatar image for Gaming-Planet
#23 Posted by Gaming-Planet (19114 posts) -

Because everyone wants to be a special snowflake.

Avatar image for foxhound_fox
#24 Posted by foxhound_fox (96996 posts) -

Supply and demand.

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

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
#25 Posted by LJS9502_basic (163064 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 ****'s sake...he didn't buy it to use it.

Avatar image for outworld222
#26 Posted by outworld222 (2876 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.

Avatar image for GreySeal9
#27 Posted by GreySeal9 (28247 posts) -

TC is a troll, guys.

Avatar image for moloch999
#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.

Avatar image for outworld222
#29 Posted by outworld222 (2876 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?

Avatar image for moloch999
#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?

Avatar image for outworld222
#31 Posted by outworld222 (2876 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.

Avatar image for Master_Live
#32 Posted by Master_Live (18821 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.

Avatar image for The-Apostle
#33 Posted by The-Apostle (12195 posts) -

Joke topic is joke topic.

Avatar image for moloch999
#34 Posted by moloch999 (155 posts) -

@The-Apostle said:

Joke topic is joke topic.

Not a joke.

Avatar image for The-Apostle
#35 Posted by The-Apostle (12195 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. >_>

Avatar image for moloch999
#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.

Avatar image for The-Apostle
#37 Posted by The-Apostle (12195 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. >_>

Avatar image for The-Apostle
#39 Posted by The-Apostle (12195 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...

Avatar image for MakeMeaSammitch
#40 Posted by MakeMeaSammitch (4889 posts) -

Look at modern art.

People actually pay for that shit

Avatar image for The-Apostle
#41 Posted by The-Apostle (12195 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.

Avatar image for moloch999
#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.

Avatar image for GreySeal9
#43 Edited by GreySeal9 (28247 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!

Avatar image for darthgumballs
#44 Posted by DarthGumballs (226 posts) -

@wis3boi said:

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

+1

Avatar image for darkmark91
#45 Posted by darkmark91 (3036 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.

Avatar image for Celldrax
#46 Edited by Celldrax (15043 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.

Avatar image for The-Apostle
#47 Edited by The-Apostle (12195 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

Avatar image for The-Apostle
#48 Edited by The-Apostle (12195 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.

Avatar image for BeardMaster
#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?

Avatar image for MrGeezer
#50 Posted by MrGeezer (59292 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?