Slashdot Mirror


1938 Superman Comic Sells For $1M

slasher999 writes in to note a new world record sale for a comic: an instance of Action Comics #1, 1938, sold for $1 million at auction. Both the buyer and the seller remain anonymous. This comic marked the first time a superhero went to work in a city, and the first time a man flew without mechanical aid.

267 comments

  1. Anonymous, huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, if they both remain anonymous, how do we know the sale has happened?

    In other news, I just bought a superman comic for $1M +1 from an anonymous seller.
    Ha!

    1. Re:Anonymous, huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      bezinga.

    2. Re:Anonymous, huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yep, I just sold this guy a comic book for $1,000,001. Sucker.

      Of course, if we're both anonymous, how do you know I didn't just sell it to myself?

    3. Re:Anonymous, huh? by iamhassi · · Score: 1

      I think we all know who bought it: Jerry Seinfeld. I heard there's a superman easter egg in every Seinfeld episode.

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    4. Re:Anonymous, huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'm just going to leave this here:
      http://www.4shared.com/file/227765731/816ff19f/action_comics_01_-_superman.html

    5. Re:Anonymous, huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I assume the auction house / website also has some fees. I doubt someone would pay those fees just to have a laugh.

    6. Re:Anonymous, huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Holy comic book cash Batman!

    7. Re:Anonymous, huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, the guy who paid 1 million must feel like a jackass now.

    8. Re:Anonymous, huh? by kannibal_klown · · Score: 1

      Eh, I think that Superman statuette on the shelf in his living room probably counts as 1/2 or 2/3 of the episodes. I can be seen in just about every one.

      I know on occasion they'll drop a line or something, even when they're not directly talking about comics/heroes. If it's every episode they must be very very subtle.

    9. Re:Anonymous, huh? by gid · · Score: 2, Informative

      Nice, I'm going to print this out and sell it. I figure it'll only be worth a hundred grand or so since it's not an original.

      And not to be picky about the short, but Superman could only "leap 1/8th of a mile; hurdle a twenty story building" in this comic, not fly.

    10. Re:Anonymous, huh? by Lord+Bitman · · Score: 1

      and flying fish glide.

      --
      -- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
    11. Re:Anonymous, huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      superman magnet on the fridge during some episodes!

    12. Re:Anonymous, huh? by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Of course, if we're both anonymous, how do you know I didn't just sell it to myself?

      Shit, how do I know I didn't sell it to myself?

    13. Re:Anonymous, huh? by russ1337 · · Score: 4, Funny

      but, but, but ... according to MPAA and RIAA doctrine, for every copy you distribute you're depriving someone in the market of the original. If you sell or give away 100 copies you've ripped the artist off over $100,000,000.... that he would have made selling originals...

      oh wait...

  2. Value, Price, and Worth by mano.m · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It may be valuable as a cultural artefact, which pushed up its price to a million dollars, but is it worth it? A comic book, really?
    Although imo, it's still far more meaningful than a lot of what passes as modern 'art'.

    --
    Karma fed to this user will be promptly burnt. Be warned; be wary.
    1. Re:Value, Price, and Worth by Jojoba86 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Things are worth what people are willing to pay for them. Some was willing to pay a million dollars, therefore that's what it's worth.

    2. Re:Value, Price, and Worth by mikael_j · · Score: 1

      Actually, it is possible to define the value of products and services in other ways than just "what people are willing to pay for them". An example of this would be a hypothetical economy where the value of products and services is determined by the resources (labor, energy and and raw materials) required for providing said products and services.

      /Mikael

      --
      Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
    3. Re:Value, Price, and Worth by mano.m · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I understand, but my comment was more along the lines of what Buffet says about gold -

      Gold gets dug out of the ground in Africa, or someplace. Then we melt it down, dig another hole, bury it again and pay people to stand around guarding it. It has no utility. Anyone watching from Mars would be scratching their head.

      Gold at least is a store of value and a safeguard in bad times. A million dollars for a comic book? Cannot compute. To each his own, I guess.

      --
      Karma fed to this user will be promptly burnt. Be warned; be wary.
    4. Re:Value, Price, and Worth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      That might be so, but you're leaving out movie and merchandising rights.

      That's where the money is!

    5. Re:Value, Price, and Worth by AuMatar · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why is gold? I can't eat it. Can't drink it. Can't hunt with it. Can't heal with it. Can't fuck it. It has some use in electronics, but there's better materials. The only reason to think it has value is because it did historically. If we actually entered a post-apocalyptic world where the dollar was useless, you'd quickly find gold to be equally useless- people would want food, ammo, medicine, sex, they'd have no use for gold. The comic book is just as likely to stand up as gold is.

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    6. Re:Value, Price, and Worth by Sobrique · · Score: 1

      Electronics and a corrosion resistant coating.
      But when the Cybermen invade, you'll be pleased you have a stash of gold on hand.

    7. Re:Value, Price, and Worth by timmarhy · · Score: 1
      Oh so all the people throughout history were just too stupid to realise it was worthless. is that your stunning point?

      gold has 2 properties that you have totally failed to comprehend. it doesn't corrode, and it's rare. i don't expect you to actually understand why this is so important, but lets just leave it at modern civilisation wouldn't exist without gold.

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    8. Re:Value, Price, and Worth by mano.m · · Score: 1

      modern civilisation wouldn't exist without gold

      if by civilisation you mean economy, and even then it may very well have.

      As long as there are stores of value that are backed by some form of permanence (nobility/national credit), economies can go on. Gold is only important by popular consensus, and that keeps it important, in an unending cycle. There are no objective reasons why it should be so valuable as a metal - one which can be replaced in most technical applications by less expensive alternatives.

      And I don't like your tone. What makes you assume another person wouldn't "actually understand" your point, Einstein?

      --
      Karma fed to this user will be promptly burnt. Be warned; be wary.
    9. Re:Value, Price, and Worth by Hognoxious · · Score: 3, Insightful

      it doesn't corrode,

      A small fraction of it is used for that reason - electrical contacts, jewelry.

      Though there are other substances that don't corrode either.

      and it's rare.

      So are John Lennon autographs and George Washington's teeth.

      modern civilisation wouldn't exist without gold.

      Fascinating. Would you care to explain why? I'd say iron's a lot more important. It's even got an age named after it.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    10. Re:Value, Price, and Worth by prionic6 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Actually, there is a "Golden Age". Closing the circle to the article topic.

    11. Re:Value, Price, and Worth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ahhh, yes. Sounds like you want the armed, gourmet chef, medically trained, hooker made of chocolate when the shit hits the fan, eh?

    12. Re:Value, Price, and Worth by badzilla · · Score: 1

      Great - I'm rare! There is only one of me on the entire planet. Although I do corrode. If rarity means something then I'm putting myself on ebay right now!

      --
      "Don't belong. Never join. Think for yourself. Peace." V.Stone, Microsoft Corporation
    13. Re:Value, Price, and Worth by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      Value is what someone will pay, inputs determine whether you can produce it at a profit. You can turn lead into gold in a particle accelerator at fantastic expense, but when you get done it's worth no more than gold from the ground.

    14. Re:Value, Price, and Worth by c6gunner · · Score: 3, Informative

      An example of this would be a hypothetical economy where the value of products and services is determined by the resources (labor, energy and and raw materials) required for providing said products and services.

      I've heard that argument before, and it's never been convincing. The first major problem that comes to mind is that under such a system, an old 26" black-and-white CRT television set would be worth roughly the same as a modern 56" LCD. Likewise, a Chinese knockoff of an iPhone would be worth exactly the same as the genuine article, even though it's complete crap. Your system makes no allowance for depreciation, or differences in quality. The other problem is that your system encourages inefficiency and laziness. If you take 10 hours and $5 in raw materials to make a chair, and I take 50 hours and $20 in raw materials to make a shittier chair, I can sell my product for a much higher price even though yours is actually superior.

      Of course, the biggest problem is that nobody has the right to tell me what I can charge for my product, or what I can pay for yours. Implementing your "hypothetical economy" would require a regime more oppressive than the old USSR. I, for one, have no interest in seeing Orwell's vision brought to life.

    15. Re:Value, Price, and Worth by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      The gold bug is a particular type of troll. Some of them eventually give up on it, after losing vast sums of money investing in gold. Some don't. There's nothing you can do to hurry along any transition that may occur, so don't feed them.

    16. Re:Value, Price, and Worth by Trepidity · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That's exchange value, one of many kinds of value. Since Aristotle, people have recognized multiple kinds of value. For example, if a major copper mine shuts down temporarily, the price of copper pots will go up. But you copper pot does not become better at cooking; as a kitchen item, it is no more or less valuable than before, even though it has greater value on the market than before, if you wanted to sell it. Similarly, if a huge new copper mine is opened, your copper pot does not lose any value as a cooking implement, but is again just as good as previously.

    17. Re:Value, Price, and Worth by gijoel · · Score: 3, Funny

      If we actually entered a post-apocalyptic world where the dollar was useless, you'd quickly find gold to be equally useless- people would want food, ammo, medicine, sex, they'd have no use for gold. The comic book is just as likely to stand up as gold is.

      Don't forget the bottle caps.

    18. Re:Value, Price, and Worth by c6gunner · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If we actually entered a post-apocalyptic world where the dollar was useless, you'd quickly find gold to be equally useless- people would want food, ammo, medicine, sex, they'd have no use for gold.

      That's one of the things I loved about Fallout 3 - the idea of using bottle-caps as currency was sheer genius. If we're going to pick arbitrary metals as a system of exchange for our post-apocalyptic world, why not have some fun with it.

    19. Re:Value, Price, and Worth by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      Possible to define? Perhaps, although you are still left with the problem of how you are going to define the value of the resources, or how you will account for the risk of creating new products or services. Practical to use? Not in the slightest. People will pay what they are willing to pay; if you try to regulate it out of existence, you will simply create a huge black market where people will continue to pay what they want to get what they want.

    20. Re:Value, Price, and Worth by jonadab · · Score: 5, Informative

      > If we actually entered a post-apocalyptic world where the
      > dollar was useless, you'd quickly find gold to be equally useless

      No, that doesn't follow.

      There have been many situations in history (frequently involving the near-certain imminent collapse of a government) wherein currency rapidly lost all its value. In each and every case, gold was still valuable.

      Gold is inherently rare. Nobody knows how to make counterfeit gold. Unless some brilliant physicist discovers an affordable way to do transmutation, that's always going to be the case.

      Gold also has a distinctive appearance that makes it easy to tell apart from other metals, even at a glance. ("Fool's gold" may look sort of like it might possibly contain gold ore, but you can't refine it and get anything that looks even vaguely like refined gold.)

      These features give gold a durable value that has outlasted innumerable currencies and governments.

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
    21. Re:Value, Price, and Worth by Cassius+Corodes · · Score: 1

      I don't think you are being fair in your analysis - many of the problems you state are also problems in the real world but not show stoppers (i.e. the Chinese knock-off is even cheaper). You can also sell a substandard chair for a higher price (And I dare say this is actually a business strategy for some folk :( ) but this doesn't cause our economic system to collapse. Remember that just because the price is not being set by the market, instead by some central agent, doesn't mean that you cannot select between different products or that you cannot have competition.

      Nor does it mean we are going to live in 1984. In many parts of the world the government sets the price of goods - but is not a totalitarian system. It may not be the best economics but such horror stories are not warranted either.

      --
      Control is an illusion, order our comforting lie. From chaos, through chaos, into chaos we fly
    22. Re:Value, Price, and Worth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Facepalm...

    23. Re:Value, Price, and Worth by jonadab · · Score: 1

      > > modern civilisation wouldn't exist without gold.
      >
      > I'd say iron's a lot more important.

      If I had to name a material that defines modern civilization, I would have said aluminum and/or plastic.

      Iron and gold refining have been around since antiquity. If these commodities could have made a civilization modern, it would have happened several thousand years sooner. Even steel has been around for a couple thousand years.

      > It's even got an age named after it.

      So do gold, bronze, stone, and ice. What's your point?

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
    24. Re:Value, Price, and Worth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Why is gold? I can't eat it. Can't drink it. Can't hunt with it. Can't heal with it. Can't fuck it.

      Please drop your idiotic slogan and read this: http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north262.html

      "Can't fuck it" indeed. You make me sick.

    25. Re:Value, Price, and Worth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love how Bethesda gets the credit for all the ideas that are straight out of the ACTUAL Fallout games.

      Fallout 3 is a bad knock on the original games. That is all.

    26. Re:Value, Price, and Worth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you're analyzing his example of another economic system based on the rules of the current scarcity-based system. In such a system there would not be any profit.

    27. Re:Value, Price, and Worth by kale77in · · Score: 2, Informative

      Factors which make gold valuable are easily identified:

      1: Gold has aesthetic value. It's pretty, and stays pretty by not tarnishing. Like silver but with colour. That makes it a tradable commodity, and then other values attach to it...

      2: Because there's not a lot of it, the price goes up; this then gives it the additional quality of encapsulating high value in small objects that can be carried easily for trade purposes. It concentrates wealth for storage or transportation. This had obvious trade benefits in the past, but today allows a single facility (Fort Knox) to secure a whole system of currency.

      3: People will always want to assert and demonstrate status over other people with bright and shiny things. Gold is not only rare and desirable but is also malleable into all manner of gaudy artifacts. Platinum might technically be more ostentatious, but it's too rare to become a trade standard, harder to work, and looks too much like silver to impress people generally.

      So gold is uniquely valuable. I don't see an apocalypse changing these factors much, If anything a reversion to the bronze age would give them a shot in the arm.

    28. Re:Value, Price, and Worth by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure that you actually read what I wrote, and I'm too tired to try and re-explain it now. I'll get back to you after I've had some sleep - meantime, maybe you could re-read what I wrote and see whether your response actually makes any sense.

    29. Re:Value, Price, and Worth by Abstrackt · · Score: 1

      That might be so, but you're leaving out movie and merchandising rights.

      That's where the money is!

      Why would I want to see a movie about some guy buying a comic book?

      --
      They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance. - Terry Pratchett
    30. Re:Value, Price, and Worth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am stunned that anyone could consider this nonsense to be insightful! This should have been modded -1 troll.

    31. Re:Value, Price, and Worth by MadKeithV · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Why would I want to see a movie about some guy buying a comic book?

      It's been done, sort of. "Take On Me" - A-Ha.

    32. Re:Value, Price, and Worth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      errr... you're a complete idiot. i lack the time to tell you why, but in short, you should study some economics and accounting before you talk about merchandising and pricing.

    33. Re:Value, Price, and Worth by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      The other problem is that your system encourages inefficiency and laziness. If you take 10 hours and $5 in raw materials to make a chair, and I take 50 hours and $20 in raw materials to make a shittier chair, I can sell my product for a much higher price even though yours is actually superior.

      It's essentially a "cost plus" model. You do find it occasionally in government/military contracts. As you suggest, it doesn't produce much of an incentive to keep cost down; quite the opposite, in fact.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    34. Re:Value, Price, and Worth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I, for one, have no interest in seeing Orwell's vision brought to life.

      It already has been brought to life. It's called North Korea.

    35. Re:Value, Price, and Worth by Yamata+no+Orochi · · Score: 1

      "Hurrr, re-read my post," is a fascinating rebuttal, but maybe you could retype it so that it actually rebuts.

      I'll get back with you after I snort this line of coke.

    36. Re:Value, Price, and Worth by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

      Some people are even willing to pay for Microsoft Windows!

    37. Re:Value, Price, and Worth by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

      You silly person. Cybermen don't invade, they're already all around you!*

      * in unprocessed form.

    38. Re:Value, Price, and Worth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It can also be pulled into think, flexible wire. It can be spread very thin. It conducts electricity.
      Also, it's pretty.

    39. Re:Value, Price, and Worth by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      If these commodities could have made a civilization modern, it would have happened several thousand years sooner.

      Raw materials are one thing. The knowledge of how to use them is another thing entirely.

      You mentioned plastics. They're mostly made from oil, which has been around for a long time too. But without the knowledge... no plastics.

      Then again, plastics are artificial materials, so the comparison with gold is hardly relevant.

      So do gold, bronze, stone, and ice. What's your point?

      Never heard of the gold age. When was it?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    40. Re:Value, Price, and Worth by Rhaban · · Score: 1

      Actually, it is possible to define the value of products and services in other ways than just "what people are willing to pay for them". An example of this would be a hypothetical economy where the value of products and services is determined by the resources (labor, energy and and raw materials) required for providing said products and services.

      /Mikael

      Say I take some duct tape, and a bunch of the latest nvidia graphics cards.
      I take the main chip off each card, remove all legs and stick them together with the duct tape in the shape of a chair.

      What do I get:
      A - a chair worth several thousand dollars, because it required expensive ressources to make, and my hour of labor isn't really cheap?
      B - a useless pile of crap not worth its weight in dirt, because nobody would ever want to buy it and I can't use it since I'm likely to break my back as soon as I sit on it?

    41. Re:Value, Price, and Worth by karcirate · · Score: 1

      and George Washington's teeth.

      Actually I just read yesterday that GW had 7 (or was it 9?) teeth removed from slaves' mouths to be implanted in his own. And since you can believe everything you read, before you go buying any of his teeth, make sure they are originals, and not some slave's tooth.

    42. Re:Value, Price, and Worth by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 1

      Value can't be pegged to the value of the components, or the energy that went into making the item...That's a core fallacy of socialism, actually.

      If that were the case, all comics would be worth the same, all art would be worth the same, all cars would be worth the same, etc, etc, assuming their component parts had equal value and they took the same time to make.

      Value is completely relative to the consumer. Doesn't matter how "good" it is if no one wants it.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    43. Re:Value, Price, and Worth by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 1

      Sure it would. There are other rare mediums for exchange. We'd have been on the platinum standard, or the silver standard. Nothing magical about gold, in an economic sense.

      Gold served as a medium of exchange, and media, as I shouldn't have to tell someone on slashdot, are irrelevant to the actual exchange.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    44. Re:Value, Price, and Worth by insufflate10mg · · Score: 1

      *crushes up 10mg*

      "Cheers!" *sniffffffffff*

    45. Re:Value, Price, and Worth by bkr1_2k · · Score: 1

      Actually, it is possible to define the value of products and services in other ways than just "what people are willing to pay for them". An example of this would be a hypothetical economy where the value of products and services is determined by the resources (labor, energy and and raw materials) required for providing said products and services.

      /Mikael

      That will only determine its initial value, not the value it has upon resale at some arbitrary future time.

      --
      "Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
    46. Re:Value, Price, and Worth by bkr1_2k · · Score: 1

      Gold isn't that rare. People used to think it was rare (kind of like diamonds though they were wrong there too) because it wasn't easy to get (in most places). That's simply not the case with modern technology. The only truly redeeming quality of gold is that it doesn't corrode.

      --
      "Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
    47. Re:Value, Price, and Worth by CharlyFoxtrot · · Score: 3, Funny

      I pity the fool who doesn't like gold. You better stop your jibba jabba, sucka.

      --
      If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
    48. Re:Value, Price, and Worth by wurble · · Score: 1

      As the AC who posted before me stated, bottle caps were the currency of Fallout 1, a game by Black Isle. They switched in Fallout 2 and it was one of the changes people didn't like. When Bethesda did Fallout 3, they switched the currency back to bottle caps.

      If you're going to call something "sheer genius", please give the credit where the credit is actually due: the folks from Black Isle. I loved Fallout 3 and think Bethesda did a great job, but there is very little in Fallout 3 that Bethesda actually came up with conceptually on their own; it's nearly all expanding on Black Isle's previous work (it IS after all a sequel).

    49. Re:Value, Price, and Worth by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      An example of this would be a hypothetical economy where the value of products and services is determined

      Sure, you can fix a price at whatever you like, but that's not the same as how much it's worth. In our own economy, companies can put whatever price they like, but I don't think people would say that therefore the product is worth that much. Otherwise I've got a rotten sandwich that's worth a million dollars.

    50. Re:Value, Price, and Worth by bkr1_2k · · Score: 1

      1. Gold definitely has aesthetic value.
      2. You do realize we (the USA and as far as I know all other major economies) are not on the "gold standard" anymore right? Fort Knox doesn't "secure a whole system of currency" and hasn't since the 60s at the latest.
      3. Yes, all of that is true. People won't care about any of it when they're looking for food. They will care about it once they've been fed and have shelter. That's when gold becomes valuable to people, when they have enough of what they need to start having the things they want so they can prove they have enough to other people.

      --
      "Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
    51. Re:Value, Price, and Worth by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      Let me know when you find a world where there is no scarcity of anything.

    52. Re:Value, Price, and Worth by Lord+Bitman · · Score: 1

      Your hypothetical example is merely absurd. Sure, it's possible to put a price tag on something which is equal to the amount of energy, etc it took to produce it, but that doesn't define worth.

      Two examples of why you are wrong:
      1) A company spends all its time and resources smashing rocks to in a specially devised shape which makes them utterly useless. It takes thousands of man-hours to produce one. Is the rock worth anything?
      2) Two companies produce widgets. Company A has one man who can produce 5 widgets an hour. Company B takes five hundred men to produce one widget an hour. The end result is the same widget. Which company's widgets are worth more?
      2.a) Bonus question: which company, in your hypothetical economy, would be considered to be worth more, and what is the logical repercussion on society as a whole?

      Now stop reading about martians and do your economics homework.

      --
      -- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
    53. Re:Value, Price, and Worth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The United States' currency (USD) is not backed up by gold or silver. It hasn't been for a while now.

    54. Re:Value, Price, and Worth by Hatta · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think this is a case, not where the buyer thinks the comic is incredibly valuable, but where they have so much money that 1 million dollars isn't really that valuable to them.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    55. Re:Value, Price, and Worth by SimonGhent · · Score: 1

      modern civilisation wouldn't exist without gold

      if by civilisation you mean economy, and even then it may very well have.

      I think the point that was being made was that gold had an agreed-upon value and could be transported from place to place, country to country. It allowed the growth of commerce and the construction of the current free-market world, for better or worse.

      I don't think the original poster necessarily meant gold as such, it could well have been something else rare (but not too rare), durable and relatively easy to identify as genuine.

      --
      simon
    56. Re:Value, Price, and Worth by Hatta · · Score: 1

      The first major problem that comes to mind is that under such a system, an old 26" black-and-white CRT television set would be worth roughly the same as a modern 56" LCD.

      Why is that a "problem". If a B&W TV costs the same to make as an HD LCD, why shouldn't they be priced the same? If nobody wants the B&W TV at that price, don't make them. More people would have better quality stuff under such a system, that doesn't seem like a problem to me.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    57. Re:Value, Price, and Worth by westlake · · Score: 1

      It is possible to define the value of products and services in other ways than just "what people are willing to pay for them". An example of this would be a hypothetical economy where the value of products and services is determined by the resources (labor, energy and and raw materials) required for providing said products and services.

      If there is no buyer, there is no production.

      Even the goods you produce for yourself come at a price. You can grow your own tomatoes. But you will have to tend the garden.

    58. Re:Value, Price, and Worth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's probably a trekkie.

    59. Re:Value, Price, and Worth by xystren · · Score: 1

      Where are my mod points when I need them?!?!??! This should undoubted be modded +1 Innovative use of Duct tape

      Cheers,
      Xyst

      PS: I think the OP deserves an obligatory Simpson's comic book guy quote..."The absolute worst comic book sale... evverr."

    60. Re:Value, Price, and Worth by DaFilthee · · Score: 1

      Can't fuck it.

      But it can fuck you!

    61. Re:Value, Price, and Worth by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      Did you really not notice that you used *different* examples. The benefit is that both are true. John Lennon autographs decay, as do George Washington's teeth - plus Washington's teeth are too rare.

      Here's a bigger (off the top of my head, so not complete) set of properties that make gold a good substance to use as a currency:

      * It has the right ballpark rarity - rare enough that small amounts can be worth enough, not so rare that there isn't enough to "go round". You don't need a wheel barrow full to buy a loaf of bread, but don't need to use pieces so small as to be unmanageable.

      * It doesn't decay, so it doesn't lose value over time due to corrosion or spoiling.

      * It's physical properties are about as good as it gets to be hard to fake. It's both denser and softer than almost everything you can mix it with (either alloying or using a non-gold center weight). Making it very simple to weigh and test hardness to check it is in fact gold. This is less true now (tungsten makes an almost perfect center weight, for example) than it was a thousand years ago.

      * It is easily worked - it is cheap to make small coins, it is easy to melt and cast.

      * It is a commodity - two John Lennon autographs are not identical. Two 1-ounce pieces of gold are identical for monetary purposes (obviously one could be a sculpture, etc but that's no longer purely monetary).

    62. Re:Value, Price, and Worth by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      If you take 10 hours and $5 in raw materials to make a chair, and I take 50 hours and $20 in raw materials to make a shittier chair, I can sell my product for a much higher price even though yours is actually superior.

      I'll have you know that's my patented business model and any attempt to start your own shitty chair business will be met with litigation!

      Joe Shitty
      Shitty Chairs LLC

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    63. Re:Value, Price, and Worth by operagost · · Score: 1

      Hypothetical, indeed. You might as well imagine mathematics where 1 + 1 = 3.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    64. Re:Value, Price, and Worth by mcbutterbuns · · Score: 1

      Can't fuck it.

      I really hope Rule 34 of the Internet is wrong...

    65. Re:Value, Price, and Worth by jonadab · · Score: 1

      > You mentioned plastics. They're mostly made
      > from oil, which has been around for a long
      > time too. But without the knowledge... no plastics.

      I'd argue that plastics are qualitatively different from oil.

      Iron and gold are basically the same iron and gold today that they were in Nebuchadnezzar's time, refined to roughly the same extent, and mostly used for the same kinds of purposes. It's not just that they had iron ores and gold ores in the ground. They also had the technology to mine them, refine them into pure form, and make things out of them, more or less exactly the same way we do it today.

      Whereas, we couldn't really do that with aluminum until the nineteenth century. Sure, alumina and other aluminum compounds were around, but aluminum metal really wasn't, not until somebody figured out how to use electrolysis to separate it from oxygen. And yes, oil was around, but plastics weren't.

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
    66. Re:Value, Price, and Worth by westlake · · Score: 1

      Why is gold? I can't eat it. Can't drink it. Can't hunt with it. Can't heal with it. Can't fuck it. It has some use in electronics, but there's better materials. The only reason to think it has value is because it did historically. If we actually entered a post-apocalyptic world where the dollar was useless, you'd quickly find gold to be equally useless

      Gold is rare and challenging to extract.

      In your post apocalyptic world, the chance that the supply will dramatically increase in your lifetime - or that of your grandchildren, or great-grandchildren - is negligible.

      Gold endures.

      Excavation of the Varna Necropolis retrieved gold jewelry from 4600 BC.

      Gold's appeal to the artist and craftsman is universal. The gold cup can be worth more than its value in bullion.

      Gold is dense.

      The counterfeit coin is easy to detect.

      The standard gold bar weighs about thirty pounds. That's a significant problem for a thief.

    67. Re:Value, Price, and Worth by Draek · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Which is why the currency standard should be cows. You can eat them, you can drink their milk, you can use their hides for clothing and you can fuck them in a pinch as well, they're the perfect standard to base an economy on.

      Some may suggest women instead, but human milk tastes like crap and human meat can be toxic, so cows are still better. Goats would be another option, but the idea of fucking them is just sick.

      --
      No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
    68. Re:Value, Price, and Worth by jonadab · · Score: 1

      > Never heard of the gold age.

      Is English your first language?

      > When was it?

      Well, in various contexts you'll get different answers, but in general the golden age is most closely associated with near-eastern empires such as Assyria, Babylonia, and Medo-Persia, in much the same way that the bronze age is associated with Greece.

      Sometimes you'll also see references to a silver age in between them.

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
    69. Re:Value, Price, and Worth by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      I'd also like to see the "value based on resources" applied to real estate.

      A house built with identical labor, energy, and raw materials at the side of a lake is worth more than one in a valley. I wonder how they rectify this situation, or if they just fall back to the "what people pay for it" explanation.

    70. Re:Value, Price, and Worth by Draek · · Score: 1

      Funny thing is, this "art collector" market is based on the same stupid model that got us into this economic mess to begin with: the price of things aren't based on what it's worth to *us* but, rather, how much we're planning on eventually reselling it for. And it only takes a single outbreak of common sense for your precious investment to plummet to the ground.

      --
      No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
    71. Re:Value, Price, and Worth by operagost · · Score: 1
      If you fix the price, then the only way to increase profits is to make something as cheaply as possible. This is a race to the bottom in quality. How's that for a rebuttal? Hurrrr...

      I'll get back to you after I'm done with YOUR MOM.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    72. Re:Value, Price, and Worth by operagost · · Score: 1

      Why is that a "problem". If a B&W TV costs the same to make as an HD LCD, why shouldn't they be priced the same?

      He's saying that AT THE TIME IT WAS PRODUCED, a B&W console TV cost as much as a big LCD TV costs now. With socialist price fixing, we would never enjoy the diminishing costs of technology that we do now. No one could ever cut their losses and sell off unpopular stock at reduced prices, either.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    73. Re:Value, Price, and Worth by operagost · · Score: 1

      Did they stop teaching kids about the monetary system in the public schools? We learned why the barter system tends to give way to a monetary system back in the 1970s and 1980s. Hint: it has to do with the fact that the goods and services your produce are not necessarily of value to everyone else.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    74. Re:Value, Price, and Worth by Last_Available_Usern · · Score: 1

      Can't fuck it.

      Says you.

    75. Re:Value, Price, and Worth by operagost · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Gold has some inherent value. Just because you don't personally value it, doesn't make it less valuable. Paper money, on the other hand (and modern coinage, to a lesser extent), is fiat and worthless outside of the promises made by its issuing authority. I find it hilarious that geeks are debating the value of gold while their wallets are full of fiat currency and bank accounts full of imaginary fiat currency.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    76. Re:Value, Price, and Worth by okooolo · · Score: 1

      well actually you could also increase production/sales

    77. Re:Value, Price, and Worth by operagost · · Score: 1

      You are correct. I should have said "profit margin."

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    78. Re:Value, Price, and Worth by kalirion · · Score: 1

      Heh, I remember when was 5 or 6, I thought diamonds were so expensive because they can be turned into really sharp knives.

    79. Re:Value, Price, and Worth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More evidence that gold has value is that something like 90% of all gold ever mined is still in use. Landfills are filled with plenty of stuff, but not gold.

    80. Re:Value, Price, and Worth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's also very shiny and nice to look at. The point about corrosion and oxidisation is good as well.

    81. Re:Value, Price, and Worth by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      I wonder how they rectify this situation, or if they just fall back to the "what people pay for it" explanation.

      They usually mumble something about property being theft, and then quickly change the subject.

    82. Re:Value, Price, and Worth by Cytotoxic · · Score: 1

      I think you've got it! Everything is the same. A doctor is the same as a school teacher is the same as a CEO of a multinational.... Everything is equal. Nothing is better or worse than anything else. Therefore, all outcomes should be equal. All jobs should be guaranteed, all salaries should be the same, all products cost the same.... It's all equal. The only reason anything deviates from this is because people are greedy and evil, so we set up a government to keep that from happening.

      In a perfect world, everyone would get a car. All cars are equal, so it doesn't matter which one - Yugo or BMW, whatever - they are all equal and guaranteed. In fact, since nobody wants a Yugo and everyone wants a nice luxury sedan, the BMW M5 is the only car anyone can make from now on. And everyone gets one. That's a huge market - and since an M5 takes so much labor to create, just think of the jobs we created! Same goes for food, clothes, housing.... same for everyone everywhere. You invented the computer and built a company that provides them for everyone - great! you get a car and an apartment, just like the guy who is supposed to clean the bath downstairs, but usually doesn't show up for work. I can't foresee any problems with such a system.

    83. Re:Value, Price, and Worth by Yamata+no+Orochi · · Score: 1

      You are correct. I should have said "profit margin."

      Which is exactly what everyone on the opposing side of the argument from you (which I didn't actually put in one way or the other until this very post, so I'm not sure why you're talking to me about it) probably had in mind.

      If you have a superior product at the exact same cost as an inferior product, you could perhaps count on better sales, resulting in more money. So it isn't a race to make the cheapest crap possible, necessarily.

      And quit being so hostile, I was picking on an asshole.

    84. Re:Value, Price, and Worth by Atanamis · · Score: 1

      I'd also like to see the "value based on resources" applied to real estate.

      A house built with identical labor, energy, and raw materials at the side of a lake is worth more than one in a valley. I wonder how they rectify this situation, or if they just fall back to the "what people pay for it" explanation.

      What they do is just leave the house built in the valley vacant until all superior sites have sold. The valley home can't be sold for less money, unless the cost of the inputs was lower (such as if the property purchase was less). This means that if you want to sell a house with higher craftsmanship for more money, you have to use more expensive raw materials to justify the increase. If you make a poor quality house with expensive materials / labor costs, you can NEVER sell it because you can't undercut those who made a better house for similar costs. The economics of a "cost plus" model aren't QUITE as broken as most free market advocates believe, but they do make it impossible to sell things at clearance prices or to charge more for finishing quickly or at higher quality.

      --
      Atanamis
    85. Re:Value, Price, and Worth by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      Likewise, a Chinese knockoff of an iPhone would be worth exactly the same as the genuine article, even though it's complete crap. Your system makes no allowance for depreciation, or differences in quality.

      While I'm not supporting a centralised model, this is not true - depreciation can be accounted for. Further, quality differences are _inherently_ identifiable because an end product with lower quality must, by definition, have been made with cheaper (=lower quality) parts and/or labour and therefore would cost proportionally less. Indeed, it would be a far superior model for identifying product quality than the free market system, which is little better than "cross your fingers and hope for the best".

    86. Re:Value, Price, and Worth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently, we live in a world where there is no scarcity of idiots. Or Slashdotters to bitch about them.

    87. Re:Value, Price, and Worth by Tetsujin · · Score: 1

      Actually, it is possible to define the value of products and services in other ways than just "what people are willing to pay for them". An example of this would be a hypothetical economy where the value of products and services is determined by the resources (labor, energy and and raw materials) required for providing said products and services.

      /Mikael

      What are the resources required in 2010 to provide a comic book produced in 1938?

      --
      Bow-ties are cool.
    88. Re:Value, Price, and Worth by Tetsujin · · Score: 1

      Why would I want to see a movie about some guy buying a comic book?

      It's been done, sort of.
      "Take On Me" - A-Ha.

      Pipe wrench fight!

      --
      Bow-ties are cool.
    89. Re:Value, Price, and Worth by demonlapin · · Score: 2, Funny

      I have a modest proposal regarding this problem...

    90. Re:Value, Price, and Worth by FiloEleven · · Score: 2, Informative

      The only reason to think it has value is because it did historically.

      It is a sad fact of contemporary Western culture that this is taken to mean "gold has no real value." All of the rights we enjoy in our society are here for the same reason--they were historically valued. It is woefully ignorant to ignore the thrust of history. You can make a case against the use of gold as a currency, but "it has historically held value" is a talking point for your opposition. After all, *every* currency has value only because we choose to agree that it does. Utility in a currency is a bad thing, because then your money supply will keep shrinking as people use the currency for other purposes.

      Some kind of currency is necessary to avoid the extra problems that the barter system brings, such as the coincidence of wants. Gold has certain properties that make it a good currency, which is why it has been so often used throughout history. These properties are arguably not as important in times of societal stability, but they become increasingly important when things fall apart.

      • Gold is fungible, meaning that one piece of gold is equivalent to another. Its size and purity can be easily tested. This is unlike comic books which, especially as they age, end up in different conditions--and then there's the quandary of "is this Punisher 2099 worth as much as that #1 Superman?"
      • Gold is stable. It takes much effort to pull more up from the ground, which means that devaluation is very slow--especially in bad times. The question of durability also comes into play: food is good for bartering, but food spoils or gets eaten so does not make a good store of value.
      • Gold is transportable. It's rare enough that a large amount of wealth can be easily carried, yet small payments can be made without using microscopic pieces.
      • Gold is divisible. It can be divided and rejoined as necessary without losing value.
      • Gold is easily recognized. Due in part to its particular nature and in part to its historical role.

      Try to understand what money is for and why a good currency must have the properties it does before making half-cocked statements about it. Your entire list of reasons for ruling out gold (can't eat it, can't hunt with it, etc.) are all things that make it good for a currency. The fact that you were modded +5 for such stupidity only shows that there are sadly many moderators as ignorant as you on the topic of money.

      There are schools of thought that say commodity-backed currencies aren't good for our society, and some of their arguments have merit. But "in bad times," as this thread is about, the only alternative is the barter system which is rife with inefficiencies. If you can't see why gold makes a good hard currency then, then I will gladly trade you all of my comic books for all of your gold.

    91. Re:Value, Price, and Worth by FiloEleven · · Score: 1

      Speaking only for myself, I was never taught about the monetary system in the American public school system. Nor did I ever have a class on civics. These two deficits, which I luckily stumbled into correcting for myself, are partially responsible for the polarized political tone, the public apathy, and the continuing financial problems of the United States.

    92. Re:Value, Price, and Worth by BryanL · · Score: 1

      Gold still has value inside a semi-closed system tht collapses in on itself because it still holds value in a larger system. In other words, if the US economy collapsed, the dollar would lose value but not gold because people in other economic systems would still value it. If, on the other hand, a global economic collapse happened, gold would lose its value. How much much value it lost would depend on the extent of the collapse.

    93. Re:Value, Price, and Worth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You invented the computer and built a company that provides them for everyone - great! you get a car and an apartment, just like the guy who is supposed to clean the bath downstairs, but usually doesn't show up for work. I can't foresee any problems with such a system.

      Or maybe you get access to basic products and services (enough for an apartment, food and other basic necessities) just like everyone else and any additional money/energy credits/whatever based on how much you work, so if you want to work twelve hours per day just so you can own more crap than the neighbors then by all means go ahead.

    94. Re:Value, Price, and Worth by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      They rectified it by only the good Soviet leaders getting the dacha by the lake.

      (OK, I'm not sure if that's entirely true, but that's the first thing I thought of when you gave that example of identical houses in different environments.)

    95. Re:Value, Price, and Worth by poopdeville · · Score: 1

      Let me know when stores start keeping forges next to their gold registers, so I can split my bullion into "non-microscopic pieces" of gold and barter for my groceries. Gold is a FANTASTIC currency.

      And if you have any good comics, I might take you up on that.

      --
      After all, I am strangely colored.
    96. Re:Value, Price, and Worth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You invented the computer and built a company that provides them for everyone - great! you get a car and an apartment, just like the guy who is supposed to clean the bath downstairs, but usually doesn't show up for work. I can't foresee any problems with such a system.

      Or maybe you get access to basic products and services (enough for an apartment, food and other basic necessities) just like everyone else and any additional money/energy credits/whatever based on how much you work, so if you want to work twelve hours per day just so you can own more crap than the neighbors then by all means go ahead.

      But that's not fair! Then you'd have more, and he'd have less. No, we can't have that. Equality is fairness, fairness is equality. Once you start letting greed into the picture, it all falls apart. Egalitarianism must be the objective - it is the only truly fair system. Rush had a pretty good example in "The Trees" on the "Hemispheres" album.

    97. Re:Value, Price, and Worth by ajlisows · · Score: 1

      If society collapsed, the immediate rush would be to food, ammo, guns, medicine, alcohol, etc. After that, society would start to recover. The guy with the Food would want Ammo, the guy with the ammo would want guns, the guy with the guns would want medicine, and the guy with medicine would want food. Instead of figuring out some complex trade agreement between all of these parties, some currency would emerge. Gold being the most likely as random pieces of paper probably wouldn't be trusted in a post-disaster scenario.

      Of course, some type of complete communism could emerge too, where people just give and take what they need, but I highly doubt that.

    98. Re:Value, Price, and Worth by BKJay · · Score: 1

      Thank you Sid Meier. Who said video games weren't educational? Look at what we've learned!

    99. Re:Value, Price, and Worth by BKJay · · Score: 1

      The rareness of gold: I recall reading an approximation of the entire amount of gold ever mined by mankind would allow you to build only one-third of the Washington Monument. http://money.howstuffworks.com/question213.htm

    100. Re:Value, Price, and Worth by Maniacal · · Score: 1

      I know you're just screwing around but the scary thing is there are people out there who believe this could actually work.

      --
      MG
    101. Re:Value, Price, and Worth by lennier · · Score: 1

      So all the stories about Montezuma's palaces of gold were just that?

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    102. Re:Value, Price, and Worth by jonadab · · Score: 1

      I suspect they probably significantly underestimated the amount of gold mined in ancient times. Part of the reason the amount produced per year is so low now is that most of the easy-to-mine gold, and all of it near the surface, was already mined more than three thousand years ago.

      If I had to guess, I'd figure their estimate of the total amount is low by at least an order magnitude, maybe more.

      But yeah, almost all of it is still around, scattered throughout the world, probably mostly in the form of jewelry and other small trinkets.

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
    103. Re:Value, Price, and Worth by haruchai · · Score: 1

      You can eat and drink it fine but you can't digest it. It'll (eventually) pass right through your system.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold#Food_and_drink

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    104. Re:Value, Price, and Worth by Virtual_Raider · · Score: 1

      Further, quality differences are _inherently_ identifiable because an end product with lower quality must, by definition, have been made with cheaper (=lower quality) parts and/or labour and therefore would cost proportionally less.

      Really? How would you propose to identify lower quality labour? Based on the education level of the workers? On some sort of XBOX live-like ranking? on the country of origin (would German craftsmanship be always more expensive than American)? on the conformance to specs of the end-product?

      If the latter, wouldn't it actually be a better quality product if its made with cheaper materials but it still complies with the specs?

      Note: emphasis in quote added by me

      --
      +Raider of the lost BBS
    105. Re:Value, Price, and Worth by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      Really? How would you propose to identify lower quality labour? Based on the education level of the workers? On some sort of XBOX live-like ranking? on the country of origin (would German craftsmanship be always more expensive than American)? on the conformance to specs of the end-product?

      Uh, how about the most obvious one - by testing them before they're allowed to make anything ?

      If the latter, wouldn't it actually be a better quality product if its made with cheaper materials but it still complies with the specs?

      No, since with a centralised model those cheaper materials could only be cheaper if they weren't as "good" (for whatever reason). Ie: quality must be inherently lower.

    106. Re:Value, Price, and Worth by CodeBuster · · Score: 1
      The value of gold lies in its inherent usefulness as a medium of exchange. The idea of a proxy for value in a barter based economy, obviating the need to satisfy the coincidence of wants problem, is so useful and efficient that just about every organized non-tribal society eventually hits upon the concept of money. The inherent value of gold stems from several desirable "moneyish" characteristics, namely:
      1. It is easily recognizable to everyone.
      2. It doesn't rot, spoil, corrode or otherwise deteriorate over time.
      3. It is easily divisible into smaller pieces or fuse welded by hand hammering into larger ones.
      4. It is practically impossible to pass off fake substitutes. There are no good substitutes.
      5. It is rare enough to be useful as money.

      For these reasons gold has always been the most logical choice for the money commodity in organized societies, even primitive ones, wherever it has been available in sufficient quantity to serve as such (which was just about everywhere). In places where gold was scarce other rare commodities, including salt (necessary for life and where we get the term salary) and even large rocks with holes bored in them (Rai Stones), have served as money but if people get organized for long enough then money inevitably appears eventually.

    107. Re:Value, Price, and Worth by Virtual_Raider · · Score: 1

      Really? How would you propose to identify lower quality labour?

      Uh, how about the most obvious one - by testing them before they're allowed to make anything ?

      It would seem like a good option, except that even now people in the educational field disagree whether current tests really do measure accurately what they intend or not. Is a grade of 100/100 an indication that you actually understand, or just that you can parrot the answers? Is an IQ score of 90 an indication of your intellectual prowess or just of your (lack of) ability to fit in the cultural frame where you took the test? There are studies that have shown how otherwise highly intelligent and high performing Asians score low on certain western intelligence tests because they simply look at some problems with a completely different mindset.

      How about a tech-related example. Take two individuals, one with an MSCE and one without. The most you can say about them is that one passed the knowledge test and the other hasn't. It doesn't tell you if the certified individual understands or can apply the concepts. Maybe he is just good at memorizing stuff while the other could have extensive hands-on experience. My point is that there is no simple way of evaluating labour quality.

      If the latter, wouldn't it actually be a better quality product if its made with cheaper materials but it still complies with the specs?

      No, since with a centralised model those cheaper materials could only be cheaper if they weren't as "good" (for whatever reason). Ie: quality must be inherently lower.

      I guess the word inherent is causing me trouble. Suppose that you do use material that is brittle for the case. Suppose that it has less space than a nomad and no wireless. You can still come up with a superior product based on factors other than the raw ingredients, i.e. design (intellectual labour) and production (technical/manual labour). Its just not a "black-and-white" issue, there are great many shades involved so to speak. What is "inherently" lower quality materials? Cardboard because it gets wet and becomes useless? Its also lighter, recyclable, cheaper. Dried compost because making products out of literal shit is disgusting? Not everybody will share that value judgement so then you would have to come up with some other 'objective' way of evaluating. See where I'm going with this?

      --
      +Raider of the lost BBS
    108. Re:Value, Price, and Worth by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      It would seem like a good option, except that even now people in the educational field disagree whether current tests really do measure accurately what they intend or not. Is a grade of 100/100 an indication that you actually understand, or just that you can parrot the answers? Is an IQ score of 90 an indication of your intellectual prowess or just of your (lack of) ability to fit in the cultural frame where you took the test? There are studies that have shown how otherwise highly intelligent and high performing Asians score low on certain western intelligence tests because they simply look at some problems with a completely different mindset.

      Talk about shooting off on a tangent. We're not talking about end of school exams, we're talking about whether worker A can produce product B.

      How about a tech-related example. Take two individuals, one with an MSCE and one without. The most you can say about them is that one passed the knowledge test and the other hasn't. It doesn't tell you if the certified individual understands or can apply the concepts. Maybe he is just good at memorizing stuff while the other could have extensive hands-on experience.

      If the benchmark is some end result, and that end result is reached, why is the methodology relevant ?

      My point is that there is no simple way of evaluating labour quality.

      There are very simple ways of evaluating nearly all labour quality. The vast majority of jobs do not require creativity, initiative, advanced skills, or deep thought. They require a typical, easily measurable end result.

      I guess the word inherent is causing me trouble. Suppose that you do use material that is brittle for the case. Suppose that it has less space than a nomad and no wireless. You can still come up with a superior product based on factors other than the raw ingredients, i.e. design (intellectual labour) and production (technical/manual labour). Its just not a "black-and-white" issue, there are great many shades involved so to speak. What is "inherently" lower quality materials? Cardboard because it gets wet and becomes useless? Its also lighter, recyclable, cheaper. Dried compost because making products out of literal shit is disgusting? Not everybody will share that value judgement so then you would have to come up with some other 'objective' way of evaluating. See where I'm going with this?

      It's irrelevant. The purpose is to assign an objective value to a finished product that does X, not come up with new products to do F, P, Q and Y.

    109. Re:Value, Price, and Worth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yet he'd have a comfortable standard of living and you'd be free to work yourself to death for those two TVs in every room that somehow make you a better person because it's the American Dream(r) gosh darnit!

    110. Re:Value, Price, and Worth by mikael_j · · Score: 1

      I believe you could call that "artificial scarcity" (or use some other similar term), despite the fact that a new copy of the comic book could be made that is of higher quality collectors would rather fight over an old copy.

      /Mikael

      --
      Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
    111. Re:Value, Price, and Worth by AuMatar · · Score: 1

      Oh, money would eventually appear. There's just no reason to think it will be gold. And whatever it is will still take time to appear, it would be all barter at first. The problem is that the gold people don't think of things in terms of medium of exchange, they think that gold itself magically has this extremely high value of hundreds of dollars an ounce. It doesn't. It has some value from being pretty and easy to make jewelry with, but claiming it has value and the dollar doesn't is idiotic.

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    112. Re:Value, Price, and Worth by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

      I never thought I would want to see a movie of two guys buying a hamburger but then I never thought I would see Neil Patrick Harris snort coke off a woman's ass.

    113. Re:Value, Price, and Worth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, it is possible to define the value of products and services in other ways than just "what people are willing to pay for them". An example of this would be a hypothetical economy where the value of products and services is determined by the resources (labor, energy and and raw materials) required for providing said products and services.

      /Mikael

      A few questions:

      If value is to be defined as you hypothesize, I have a few questions. First of all what is the value of the resources required for providing it and how do you define it (I see some recursion issue here)? Specifically:

      What is the value of labour? Do you count man hours? And do you take into account the skill level required? And possible efficiency due to work experience?

      What is the value of the energy required? And what energy is required? Only that which is required to operate any machinery used or also e.g. heating of production facilities during manufacturing?

      What is the value of raw materials? How do you define that if you cannot define it as what someone is willing to pay for them?

      So far, I've not taken into account fixed costs (such as rent and maintenance of production facilities), product development costs and economies of scale (not even on a simple level such as one worker making multiple identical artifacts and thereby saving time by simply not having to switch between tasks). Now even with those omissions, I have no idea how to define value the way you propose. So could you, using your definition, tell me what the value of any of these goods is:

      - a loaf of bread
      - a stool
      - a CPU

    114. Re:Value, Price, and Worth by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      > Never heard of the gold age.

      Is English your first language?

      Yes, what's yours?

      Well, in various contexts you'll get different answers

      No, you'll get the answer that there's no such thing.

      but in general the golden age

      Someone who thinks four out of six letters in common means a word is the same - and you ask me about what my native language is?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    115. Re:Value, Price, and Worth by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Very nice. But you can still have an economy - and a modern one - without it. It's just a medium of exchange; what actually matters is the goods and services being traded.

      In some ways I'm as materially well off as a medieval king, but I possess very little of it.

      I'm sure that if it didn't exist trade would have still gone on - whether by barter or some advanced honor system similar to hawala. We wouldn't be still living in caves, which was timmy the dimmy's assertion.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    116. Re:Value, Price, and Worth by FiloEleven · · Score: 1

      I have some Punisher 2099...

    117. Re:Value, Price, and Worth by CodeBuster · · Score: 1

      There's just no reason to think it will be gold.

      Yes, it will be gold (and other precious metals, but gold is best). It has always been gold wherever gold has been available in sufficient quantities (did you read the list in my op?) and it always will in the absence in the absence of organized centralized record keeping; nothing has been more useful as money than gold and other precious metals. Gold satisfies all of the necessary requirements for a "money" commodity better than any other potential substitute; hence the reason why gold always wins out in the end.

      It doesn't matter why people think that gold has value. You are just not understanding the basic economics here. Bartering, which occurs in the absence of money, is an extremely inefficient way to conduct exchange in an economy. If you don't believe that then just ask the Zimbabweans (they have some recent experience in this matter). As I said previously, money is such a useful and efficient concept that it is bound to appear spontaneously wherever people get organized for long enough to form bartering and trading relationships. This has been the case throughout human history in all cultures (even those which had no contact with each other before developing money).

      but claiming it has value and the dollar doesn't is idiotic.

      I didn't say that. The dollar has value because it satisfies the same money requirements listed in the OP (or at least it does when governments don't print too much of it) and people have collectively agreed to use it as the money. If you concede that money is inevitable in any sufficiently organized society than whatever serves as the money commodity, whether that is gold and precious metals or bits in a computer system for advanced modern economies like ours, must satisfy the list of "moneyish" requirements in order to be useful as money. Gold works best as the money in lower tech societies because it retains the "moneyish" qualities without organized and centralized control. In the post-apocalyptic scenarios favored by some here on Slashdot, gold and other precious metals would probably regain their primacy as money.

    118. Re:Value, Price, and Worth by RockWolf · · Score: 1

      Some may suggest women instead, but human milk tastes like crap and human meat can be toxic

      Out of morbid curiosity: [citation needed]

      --
      February 9th, 2009 8:55pm: Slashdot becomes self-aware.
    119. Re:Value, Price, and Worth by DarkEmpath · · Score: 1

      Things are worth what people are willing to pay for them.

      Sorry, but I need to modify that statement to: Things cost what people are willing to pay for them.

      "Cost" and "worth" are two very different things. I work in the finance industry and most of my clients learned that the hard way over the last few years.

    120. Re:Value, Price, and Worth by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      I thought everybody knew he had false teeth. It's the reason he's got that tight-lipped expression on the dollar bill - he's worried they'll fall out.

      It's also, bizarrely, the very reason I chose them as an example of something that's rare.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  3. As a Computer Scientist... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    I say call me when you have issue #0 for sale.

  4. Technically speaking ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    Superman is not a man. He is an alien from the planet Krypton. So this is NOT "the first time a man flew without mechanical aid."

    1. Re:Technically speaking ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Superman is not a man

      Superalien?

    2. Re:Technically speaking ... by lxs · · Score: 2, Funny

      Now you've done it. Superman has gone into a super depression after you've questioned his super manhood. I hope you're super happy.

    3. Re:Technically speaking ... by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 2, Funny

      No, he's super! Thanks for asking. All things considered, he couldn't be better, I must say.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    4. Re:Technically speaking ... by SirWinston · · Score: 5, Interesting

      >Superman is not a man. He is an alien from the planet Krypton. So
      >this is NOT "the first time a man flew without mechanical aid."

      And hence my favorite Tarantino fanboyism, courtesy of Kill Bill Vol. 2:

      Bill: "As you know, l'm quite keen on comic books. Especially the ones about superheroes. I find the whole mythology surrounding superheroes fascinating. Take my favorite superhero, Superman. Not a great comic book. Not particularly well-drawn. But the mythology... The mythology is not only great, it's unique.... Now, a staple of the superhero mythology is, there's the superhero and there's the alter ego. Batman is actually Bruce Wayne, Spider-Man is actually Peter Parker. When that character wakes up in the morning, he's Peter Parker. He has to put on a costume to become Spider-Man. And it is in that characteristic Superman stands alone. Superman didn't become Superman. Superman was born Superman. When Superman wakes up in the morning, he's Superman. His alter ego is Clark Kent. His outfit with the big red "S", that's the blanket he was wrapped in as a baby when the Kents found him. Those are his clothes. What Kent wears - the glasses, the business suit - that's the costume. That's the costume Superman wears to blend in with us. Clark Kent is how Superman views us. And what are the characteristics of Clark Kent. He's weak... he's unsure of himself... he's a coward. Clark Kent is Superman's critique on the whole human race."

      --
      "It's a damn poor mind that can only think of one way to spell a word."--Andrew Jackson
    5. Re:Technically speaking ... by jonadab · · Score: 1

      The whole Superman backstory has been rewritten and changed repeatedly over the decades. Are you sure that Superman was already revealed to be an alien in the first comic book he appeared in? I wouldn't be at all surprised if that revelation came later.

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
    6. Re:Technically speaking ... by DuckDodgers · · Score: 2, Informative

      The linked article does not assert that this is Superman's first flight, or that this is the first super-hero working in the city. Where did the Slashdot author get that? One of the first tag lines for Superman was "faster than a speeding bullet, more powerful than a locomotive, and able to leap tall buildings in a single bound" - writers did not give him the ability to fly until some time in the 1940s, I think, and by that time dozens or hundreds of other flying superheroes had been created.

    7. Re:Technically speaking ... by kannibal_klown · · Score: 1

      >Superman is not a man. He is an alien from the planet Krypton. So
      >this is NOT "the first time a man flew without mechanical aid."

      And hence my favorite Tarantino fanboyism, courtesy of Kill Bill Vol. 2:

      It truly is a well thought out thesis and a stellar monologue, one of my favorite from the Kill Bill series. However I think it suits the Golden Age Superman better, perhaps even the Silver Age Superman.

      Now-a-days they try to make the normal Clark Kent his true personality since that's how he was raised; he was raised on Earth, not on Krypton. In contrast, native Kryptons tend to be more logical and cold; they still love and show emotion but their behavior is seen as alien to humans (or at least Americans).

      To complicate matters there's a third person, that of the "idiot Clark" which he uses as a defense mechanism around strangers or when he wants to diffuse people's speculations about his where-a-bouts while Superman was saving someone.

    8. Re:Technically speaking ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The modern interpretation is that Superman and Metropolis Clark Kent are both acts with Smallville Clark Kent being the "real" person.

    9. Re:Technically speaking ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nonono,

      He's THUUUPER, Thanks for Athhking.

    10. Re:Technically speaking ... by karcirate · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, are you denying Mr. Kent his human rights? I'm gonna sick my liberal bad-ass buddies on you. Wait a minute, I don't have any liberal buddies...

      But seriously (for real) who says the "men" of Krypton and the Earth men didn't share a common ancestry on the planet Gorgon?

    11. Re:Technically speaking ... by kehren77 · · Score: 1

      Superman is not a man. He is an alien from the planet Krypton. So this is NOT "the first time a man flew without mechanical aid."

      Technically the word man is defined as "an adult male person, as distinguished from a boy or a woman." So judging by the bulge in his pants, we assume he's a man. Granted arguments can be made that you never see his penis in the comic. And I suppose we are assuming that given his age his species would consider him to be a man and not a boy.

    12. Re:Technically speaking ... by MartinSchou · · Score: 1

      Superman is not a man.

      The trouble is, everyone assumes that "superman" is supposed to be something like "superior human". Superman is in fact an abbreviation. Just like IBM is actually International Business Machines.

      Strong
      Unstoppable
      Powerful
      Empathic
      Red-caped
      Male
      Anthropomorphic
      Neo-earthling

      But it's a lot easier just to say superman.

    13. Re:Technically speaking ... by brucmack · · Score: 1

      Maybe Superman flies while carrying a man?

    14. Re:Technically speaking ... by MMC+Monster · · Score: 1

      Loved that. And the dichotomy of Batman and Superman becomes evident:

      Bruce Wayne puts on a costume to become Batman. Superman puts on a costume to become Clark Kent.

      New York is Metropolis by day and Gotham by night.

      --
      Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
    15. Re:Technically speaking ... by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 3, Informative

      The Shoveler: Oh yeah, well, maybe if we had a billionaire benefactor like Lance Hunt, then we could afford some advertising.
      Mr. Furious: I think that's because Lance Hunt is Captain Amazing.
      Blue Raja: Oh, here we go.
      Shoveler: Oh, don't start that again! Lance Hunt wears glasses. Captain Amazing doesn't wear glasses.
      Mr. Furious: He takes them off when he transforms.
      Shoveler: That doesn't make any sense. He wouldn't be able to see!

    16. Re:Technically speaking ... by Jiro · · Score: 1

      First of all, the Slashdot article is wrong (since when is that new?) Superman didn't fly in his early appearances. He only started flying after the Fleischer cartoons showed him flying. So it's certainly not true that Action Comics #1 shows a man flying. Second, the Kill Bill line is spoken by a villain and I'm amazed that anyone takes it seriously; the fact that the modern version of Superman is different makes it more wrong, but it was wrong even for the version of Superman he's describing. Clark Kent is not Superman's idea of a human, he's Superman's idea of a weak human. It doesn't mean that he thinks all humanity is like Clark Kent.

    17. Re:Technically speaking ... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Clark Kent is not Superman's idea of a human, he's Superman's idea of a weak human. It doesn't mean that he thinks all humanity is like Clark Kent.

      They don't have to all be like Clark Kent for him to still represent a critique on humanity; a critique by its nature will often emphasize flaws.

      But yes, the fact that the monologue is delivered by Bill is certainly relevant to how you should take it. Still, it's pretty insightful. :)

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    18. Re:Technically speaking ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I really don't agree with Tarantino's summation here. Superman was raised on a Kansas farm as Clark Kent. He only adopted the Superman persona later. It's Superman that is Clark Kent's alter ego - not the other way around.

    19. Re:Technically speaking ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tarantino is indeed a great fanboy:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jules_Feiffer#Books

      [Feiffer's] non-fiction includes the book The Great Comic Book Heroes (an extract of which Quentin Tarantino adapted for a speech in his film Kill Bill).

    20. Re:Technically speaking ... by blivit42 · · Score: 1

      Lois: If you wanna kill Superman, I don't know why you're going to Smallville or 1966.
      Tempus: She doesn't know yet. Oh, this is good. This is really good. Um, Lois, did you know that, in the future, you're revered at the same level as Superman? Why there are books about you, statues, an interactive game. You're even a breakfast cereal.
      Lois: Really?
      Tempus: Yes. But, as much as everybody loves you, there is one question that keeps coming up: "How dumb was she?" Here, I'll show you what I mean. Look
      [puts glasses on]
      Tempus: , I'm Clark Kent.
      [Takes glasses off]
      Tempus: No, I'm Superman.
      [Puts glasses on]
      Tempus: Mild-mannered reporter.
      [Takes glasses off]
      Tempus: Superhero. Hello! Duh! Clark Kent is Superman. Ha, ha, ha. Well, that was worth the whole trip. To actually meet the most galactically stupid woman who ever lived.

  5. Price a bit on the low side? by bbbaldie · · Score: 2, Funny

    Comic values are down overall. I suspect that AC #1 might get lots more money in a more favorable economy. This one may be a great investment. I remember saving #1 issues of comics in the early 70's. Anyone else notice what crap, worthless comics debuted during that era? ;-)

  6. Excellent time to sell by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 0

    I must say, the timing on this sale was impeccable. Didn't these #1 Supermans used to be worth $25,000 or so? Right now is the time to sell. The whole superhero/comic book thing is getting old already. These trends only have a certain lifetime, and I'd say the peak is right about now, if it hasn't passed already. Oh, collectors items will always be worth something, but just not as much as they are right now due to the demand. Any analogs to other trends?

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    1. Re:Excellent time to sell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, collectors items will always be worth something, but just not as much as they are right now due to the demand. Any analogs to other trends?

      Beanie Babies?

    2. Re:Excellent time to sell by Rennt · · Score: 1

      Classic cars. When I was living in Europe about a decade ago there was a rush on classics - the consensus was that there was a limited supply and all the low hanging fruit was already gone. Collectors panicked and paid insane prices.

      Anyway, those cars are now worth about half of what people were paying for them 10 years ago. But you know what? There is a limited supply of early Aston Martins and Jaguars, so as long as the cars actually survive long enough, they will probably see those prices again.

    3. Re:Excellent time to sell by Jaruzel · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Once, I was at a sci-fi collectables fair. One of the most popular stands was selling Beanie babies. My 1 year old daughter, whom I was carrying, started stretching out for one of the beanie babies (a small pig I think). I picked it up and asked how much. The vendor told me £30 or there abouts. Watched by the many other collectors who were all sifting through the stand, I bought the beanie baby pig, tore off the tag, and handed it to my daughter.

      The silence around me was deafening... I quickly retreated to the Star Trek area, where at least they can take a joke.

      -Jar.

      PS. She's 12 now, and still has the beanie baby pig, without tag, and without most of it's fur.
      PPS. I bought an original lobby poster of Star Trek V at that same fair, signed by Shatner. It's one of my most valuable collectables.

      --
      Together, We Can Make Slashdot Better. I Do NOT Mod ACs. - Check Me Out
    4. Re:Excellent time to sell by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Seems like NES collectibles are about at peak now, with Nintendo kids in their late 20s, early 30s. That's a time when most people start getting real incomes, but may not have as many responsibilities just yet. We've already seen the peak of Atari collectibles as Atari kids are getting older and spending money on houses and kids and some such. Sega Genesis stuff used to be dirt cheap, but prices are creeping up. We'll probably see a peak there in 5-10 years.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    5. Re:Excellent time to sell by dwye · · Score: 1

      > Any analogs to other trends?

      The comics market has already collapsed at least once since I was in college (so long ago that Star Trek needed no TOS), and it will again.

      And, of course, California real estate.

    6. Re:Excellent time to sell by fumblebruschi · · Score: 1

      Some time ago there was a fad for a collectible card game called "Magic". The cards were sold in random packs, and there were some cards that weren't found very often and so became sought after among the people who collected the cards. Some of them sold for quite a lot of money -- in the hundreds of dollars. I had a friend who was working at a hotel where there was a big convention for people who, among other things, were really into collecting these cards. He went out to buy a big pile of the random packs and managed to round up a number of these rare Magic cards. He then laminated them, cut them in half, and used them as coat-check claim cards. He said the expressions on the attendees' faces when they saw their claim cards made that whole crappy job worth while.

  7. I thought Superman could just leap over things by Punto · · Score: 3, Interesting

    not "fly" (at first at least)

    --

    --
    Stay tuned for some shock and awe coming right up after this messages!

    1. Re:I thought Superman could just leap over things by 91degrees · · Score: 4, Informative

      You're absolutely right. Well, presumably he had the retconned ability to fly at the time.

      Not totally convinced by the argument that flight was a cost reduction thing for the animated series though. This was pretty high quality work, and flying would mean they couldn't use the rotoscoping technique they used for most of the animation.

    2. Re:I thought Superman could just leap over things by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      If you watch the original animated shorts, they stick pretty close to the "jumping really high" idea. There are a few scenes that are a little iffy (changing direction in mid-air), and one really iffy incident with a magnetically-attracted asteroid, but-- it's a cartoon, right? You can't expect perfect continuity. The comics writers might have gotten the idea for flight from this, but I very much doubt the animators ever threw up their hands and said, "hell with it! let's just make him fly!!"

      (Hell, in Superfriends, sometimes *Batman* could fly due to lazy animators.)

      What's really interesting about the original animated series is that Superman:
      1) Kills people with some regularity (or, at least, refuses to save them)
      2) Is actually pretty defeat-able. I mean, sure he's bulletproof, but there are several shorts where ordinary gangsters almost defeat him in various ways. In one short, they almost suffocate him with gas grenades as he's saving a train. Gas grenades! Even in the late 90s when they toned his power level down to "sane" levels for the Superman animated series, he wouldn't be affected by gas grenades.

  8. As you know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Redundant

    ...l'm quite keen on comic books.
    Especially the ones about superheroes.

    I find the whole mythology
    surrounding superheroes fascinating.

    Take my favorite superhero, Superman.

    Not a great comic book.
    Not particularly well-drawn.

    But the mythology...

    The mythology is not only great,
    it's unique.

    Now, a staple of the superhero
    mythology is,

    there's the superhero
    and there's the alter ego.

    Batman is actually Bruce Wayne,
    Spider-Man is actually Peter Parker.

    When that character wakes up
    in the morning, he's Peter Parker.

    He has to put on a costume
    to become Spider-Man.

    And it is in that characteristic
    Superman stands alone.

    Superman didn't become Superman.

    Superman was born Superman.

    When Superman wakes up
    in the morning, he's Superman.

    His alter ego is Clark Kent.

    His outfit with the big red "S" -

    that's the blanket he was wrapped in
    as a baby when the Kents found him.

    Those are his clothes.

    What Kent wears - the glasses,
    the business suit - that's the costume.

    That's the costume Superman wears
    to blend in with us.

    Clark Kent is how Superman views us.

    And what are the characteristics
    of Clark Kent?

    He's weak... ...he's unsure of himself... ...he's a coward.

    Clark Kent is Superman's critique
    on the whole human race.

    1. Re:As you know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Burma Shave.

  9. I wonder... by chronosan · · Score: 1

    How much this sketch is worth at auction: http://www.histori.ca/minutes/minute.do?id=10206

  10. Should read by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "This marked the first time a superhero went to work in a city, and the first time a man flew without mechanical aid, in a comic."

    You Americans have about 4000 years of prior art, largely in the form of European and Asian mythology.

  11. Icarus flew before Superman by GuyFawkes · · Score: 1

    as subject, lameness filter, meh

    --
    http://slashdot.org/~GuyFawkes/journal
    1. Re:Icarus flew before Superman by FornaxChemica · · Score: 1

      the first time a man flew without mechanical aid

      Icarus had wings built for him (by his father Daedalus, says Wikipedia), he didn't fly on his own. But this line ticked me off too, there must be earlier examples of men flying without mechanical aid or even natural wings.

    2. Re:Icarus flew before Superman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Plus the Iliad contained superheroes in a city (Troy) long before Superman entered Metropolis. And arguably, when Mohammed ascended to heaven from Jerusalem he was both a superhero in a city AND a man who could fly. Come to think of it, various witches would also count as superhuman + fly + city. And what about Dracula? The more I type the more examples come to mind.

    3. Re:Icarus flew before Superman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, there're tons of examples on the christian bible and other religious/fiction books.

    4. Re:Icarus flew before Superman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sadly Icarus the comic didn't do too well, "This comic marked the first time a superhero went to work in a city, and the first time a man flew without mechanical aid.", i.e the first time in a comic a man flew without mechanical aid.

    5. Re:Icarus flew before Superman by ari_j · · Score: 1

      Please tell me that you knew that Daedalus built the wings for Icarus without resorting to Wikipedia. I really want to believe it.

    6. Re:Icarus flew before Superman by FornaxChemica · · Score: 1

      Maybe I've known, but I certainly didn't remember, at least I knew he didn't have wings of his own. Do you really think this is common knowledge? Frankly I don't think so.

    7. Re:Icarus flew before Superman by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      Well, there're tons of examples on the christian bible

      Actually, there are no examples of people flying without aid in the christian bible. The two closest are Elijah flying on the flaming chariot (mechanical aid), and Jesus walking on water (unaided defying of gravity/relative densities; unless you count the water as an aid).

    8. Re:Icarus flew before Superman by ari_j · · Score: 1

      I guess it depends on where you go to school. It's a sufficiently well-known Greek myth that it was taught in my public high school. There are also numerous references in modern popular culture, from metal music (Iron Maiden's "Flight of Icarus") to video games (the Icarus and Daedalus entities in the game Deus Ex). I wasn't criticizing you, at any rate, but whatever school failed to teach you this simple and memorable myth - probably all schools, at that. =)

  12. Excellent! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    best. price. eva.

  13. Insightfull by Fotograf · · Score: 1

    Because when you have gold, you can do all of it you mentioned :-)

    --
    God's gift to chicks
  14. Only 70+ more years till my comics are $$$$$ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Only 70+ more years until my comics from the 80s are worth something.
    Maybe my grandkids will have it made?

    Ah, who am I kidding. Those comics from the 80s/90s where way over produced and collected and none of them were as groundbreaking as the 1st Superman.

  15. Wha it Shaq or D. Howard? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wha it Shaq or D. Howard?

  16. Technical nitpick by Amiralul · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Superman didn't flew in Action Comics #1. He just leap tall buildings in a single bound.

  17. Terrible Hero by BlackHawk-666 · · Score: 1, Troll

    Superman is a terrible hero. He has every major advantage you could ever need to defeat any form of villain on Earth, and because of that there is never any reasonable doubt that he can get through any situation.

    Tied up? Super strength out.
    Locked in a mile deep underground basement - fly / tunnel out.
    Screwed up and someone you liked died - turn time backwards.
    Need to stop missile - use the fricking laers in your eyes.
    Someone sneaking up on you with a crowbar (as if it matters)? Super hearing!

    He has one weakness, to an element that might as well be called Unobtainium, but for story reasons keeps appearing in the hands of villains who don't possess FTL or even the means to detect it...they just get really freaking lucky and get some!

    Even if he gets real unlucky and fights Lex Luthor, who has some unob....I mean Kryptonite, and he's been suckered once again into standing right next to a box of it...he could call a friend to close the box, or maybe nuke the site and spread it all over. All the baddies die, he lives, and the unob^H^H^H^HKryptonite is dispursed enough to not matter.

    There's simply no other situation he can punch, fricking laser, or fly his way out of.

    Superman makes me want to root for the bad guys.

    --
    All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
    1. Re:Terrible Hero by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On top of that, Lois could never have Superman's baby. Do you think her fallopian tubes could handle the sperm? I guarantee you he blows a load like a shotgun right through her back. What about her womb? Do you think it's strong enough to carry his child? He's an alien, for Christ sake. His Kyrptonian biological makeup is enhanced by earth's yellow sun. If Lois gets a tan the kid could kick right through her stomach. Only someone like Wonder Woman has a strong enough uterus to carry his kid. The only way he could bang regular chicks is with a kryptonite condom. That would kill him.

    2. Re:Terrible Hero by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    3. Re:Terrible Hero by kannibal_klown · · Score: 1

      ...

      Screwed up and someone you liked died - turn time backwards.

      ...

      He has one weakness, to an element that might as well be called Unobtainium, but for story reasons keeps appearing in the hands of villains who don't possess FTL or even the means to detect it...they just get really freaking lucky and get some!

      Well the "time" thing was only for the film. The TV series Smallville had a time travel episode, but it was device in the Fortress of Solitude that could only be used once. IE, he couldn't keep traveling to "yesterday" and use it again, which was the plot point because he travel in time resulted in his father dying.

      But that's it. Perhaps in the Golden Age or the early Silver Age he had the ability, but I haven't heard of it in the comics.

      As for K, yeh it was a little silly for decades. Something that was incredibly rare kept popping up, they tried to explain some of it away as it being synthetic with a short shelf life but that grew old.

      Recently they upped the amount of K on Earth due to Super-Girl's re-arrival. Her ship was trapped in a large asteroid *filled* with the stuff, so metric tons of K fell to the earth for villains and governments to use.

    4. Re:Terrible Hero by Jaruzel · · Score: 1

      I am SO with you on this. I've always disliked Superman for many reasons, but mainly
        a) He's WAY overspecced so that no encounter is ever dangerous.
        b) Even though I know his reasons for being created (US Depression era), his Jingoism simply gets on my nerves.
        c) Theres no inner turmoil. In short, he's a dumb Jock who would have never graduated from High School.

      This leaves us with very simplistic stories that fail to engage.

      I'm bias though, because for me, Batman is the MAN.

      -Jar

      --
      Together, We Can Make Slashdot Better. I Do NOT Mod ACs. - Check Me Out
    5. Re:Terrible Hero by Jaruzel · · Score: 1

      'bang regular chicks'

      Who let the pre-schoolers in here?

      *sigh*

      --
      Together, We Can Make Slashdot Better. I Do NOT Mod ACs. - Check Me Out
    6. Re:Terrible Hero by dfxm · · Score: 1

      You'd probably like The Dark Knight Returns.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dark_Knight_Returns

      While Batman can't match Superman's strength, he makes up for it in cunning.

    7. Re:Terrible Hero by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Never seen "Mallrats", eh.

    8. Re:Terrible Hero by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that Superman is also supposed to be super-intelligent. He beats a number of villians, including Nixeldick, or whatever his name is, using his smarts.

    9. Re:Terrible Hero by sproketboy · · Score: 1

      Exactly. That's why he needs a reboot. Back to the original comics where he didn't have all those extra bat-utility-belt powers.

    10. Re:Terrible Hero by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Superman is a terrible hero. He has every major advantage you could ever need to defeat any form of villain on Earth, and because of that there is never any reasonable doubt that he can get through any situation.

      As a longtime comic geek, I find this is actually a persistent problem throughout comicdom with many superheroes. They become increasingly powerful over time to the point where it's nearly impossible to dredge up a villain who can present a credible challenge. They become gods-on-earth and gods make for poor protagonists because there's no drama if the antagonist isn't a credible threat. Every villain has to be a total Weapon of Mass Destruction able to kill millions (if not destroy the planet). At some point, every government on earth would get tired of their cities being demolished on a regular basis and they would band together to run the magnet-for-mass-destruction hero off the planet. So the comics company ends up having to pull a "Crisis on Infinite Earth"-type storyline to retconn their power levels down before they become totally unwriteable as characters.

      In the original 1938 Action Comics #1, Superman didn't have most of his current powers. He was strong enough to jump a quarter mile (half-kilometer), fast enough to race a train, and "nothing less than a bursting shell could penetrate his skin." That was it. No heat vision, no super-breath, no super-hearing, etc, and so his primary villains were usually crime bosses. Over time his other powers were added, and his strength, speed, and invulnerability kept getting amped up to the point where he can now crack the planet in half, he can fly through a sun without so much as a sunburn, and he can run a light-speed; as a result, his primary enemies tend to be killer aliens. And most of the writers on his book have admitted that "Superman doesn't work as a character without Kryptonite" but Kryptonite is a terrible vulnerability because a half-second exposure and suddenly he's totally incapacitated. One Kryptonite bullet would smoke him so it's inconceivable that some villain wouldn't have figured out a way to put one through his brain by now.

      Worse, almost every other hero around becomes expendable because there's almost no meaningful help anyone else can offer the overpowered hero. Batman remains useful because he's flat-out smarter and can solve crimes Superman can't; Wonder Woman remains occasionally useful because she's the only other person (ignoring Supergirl) who's close enough to his power levels to commiserate with him. But whenever anyone else is in the same book, they have to either artificially limit Superman or concoct some fairly ludicrous circumstance to give everyone else something meaningful to do.

    11. Re:Terrible Hero by Remus+Shepherd · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The point of Superman stories -- if they are well written -- is not to make you worry about whether Superman will survive. The point is to make you worry about whether everyone else will survive.

      He's the archetypical protector. The dramatic tension comes from wondering whether he can do his job as a protector. His survival is not important to the narrative.

      --
      Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
    12. Re:Terrible Hero by Dephex+Twin · · Score: 1

      What kind of pre-schoolers talk about banging chicks??

      --

      If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe. -- Carl Sagan
    13. Re:Terrible Hero by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed batman is vulnerable, which makes his exploits so much more interesting. Spiderman is really just a kid that got some superpowers (invincibility not being one of them) and has to deal with life and crime.

        Superman, seriously, why does he even need to pretend to be human? To earn money? for what? Pay a mortgage? he owns a fortress. Eat? he could catch fish with his bare hands and cook them with his laser vision. He has no need to ever not be super, and he is boring for trying IMO.

    14. Re:Terrible Hero by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'bang regular chicks'

      Who let the pre-schoolers in here?

      *sigh*

      Not a Kevin Smith fan, I see.

    15. Re:Terrible Hero by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      You misunderstand.

      Lex Luthor is the hero, selflessly fighting a continual battle against a super-powerful alien invader. Heck, he even was elected President once, showing that he has the consent and approval of the people in his battle.

      Superman comics are more interesting when read that way.

    16. Re:Terrible Hero by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, in later years he showed some other minor weaknesses. Magic affects him just like everyone else, and his super-hearing makes him vulnerable to sonic attacks.

    17. Re:Terrible Hero by westlake · · Score: 1

      He's the archetypical protector. The dramatic tension comes from wondering whether he can do his job as a protector. His survival is not important to the narrative.

      There are also the inherent temptations in possessing such unlimited powers.

    18. Re:Terrible Hero by kalirion · · Score: 1

      Oh please, Batman is overpowered too, brainwise. Hell, he probably has an anti-Chuck Norris spray.

    19. Re:Terrible Hero by dwye · · Score: 1

      Nice steal from Niven's "Man Of Steel, Woman Of Kleenex" article. However, the answer is obviously to move LL (all Superman's girlfriends had those initials) to an area receiving light like that of a red sun, which reduces Kryptonians to human-like levels. And it doesn't have any bad effects, since Kryptonians evolved in that light; Kal-El himself was born there, for that matter.

    20. Re:Terrible Hero by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll side with the pre-schoolers who have seen Mallrats over the old farts who haven't.

      *sigh*

    21. Re:Terrible Hero by Chowderbags · · Score: 1

      Don't forget:

      In a talent contest: Super-ventriloquism your way out.

      Seriously.

    22. Re:Terrible Hero by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well then, you have to become more imaginative.

      Here's an entertaining "alternative reality" story where this version of Superman gets into a spot that he can't punch or fly his way out.

      But your point still stands, the writer always have to come up with an explanation why this flying Deus Ex Machina doesn't have the power to resolve the problem in five minutes.

    23. Re:Terrible Hero by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      But as an episode of Bat-man Beyond shows, he makes an excellent foil.

    24. Re:Terrible Hero by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh please, Batman is overpowered too, brainwise. Hell, he probably has an anti-Chuck Norris spray.

      Or how about a can of "Bat-Female Villain Repellent"?

    25. Re:Terrible Hero by damnbunni · · Score: 1

      Superman used to time travel pretty frequently. He'd fly faster than ths speed of light - either on his own, or in a Kryptonian rocket.

      He could apparently travel either direction in time this way.

    26. Re:Terrible Hero by kannibal_klown · · Score: 1

      Superman used to time travel pretty frequently. He'd fly faster than ths speed of light - either on his own, or in a Kryptonian rocket.

      He could apparently travel either direction in time this way.

      How long ago was this? Golden Age, Silver Age, Modern?

      At one point (either late golden or early silver) he was insanely tough, I think fans sometimes jokingly referred to him as the planet juggler. Personally I only really followed the comics starting in the 1990s for a couple of years and then again recently, so my knowledge of the older stuff is hearse.

      Eventually they started to tone him down some and take away some of his wacky abilities. I think at one point he could move so fast he could open a wormhole and pretty-much instantly transport himself anywhere on the planet. I imagine "ability to time-travel at will" was one of these insane abilities/tools.

  18. Tax-avoidance? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe it's a tax-avoidance scheme.

    1. Re:Tax-avoidance? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's just tax payer dollars used for the bank bonuses to go to something that will be worth something more than US dollars in 5 years.

  19. Truth, Justice, and the American Way by clickety6 · · Score: 4, Funny

    I always liked the way Superman fought for "Truth, Justice, and the American Way" implying that whatever the "American Way" is, it doesn't include Truth and Justice ;-)

    --
    ----------------------------------- My Other Sig Is Hilarious -----------------------------------
    1. Re:Truth, Justice, and the American Way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given how costly 'The American Way' has been on the rest of the world, it would appear the author of Superman was being quite insightful indeed.

    2. Re:Truth, Justice, and the American Way by wcbarksdale · · Score: 1

      The "American Way" actually wasn't an original part of the phrase, but added first during WWII and then again during the Cold War. Siegel and Shuster were liberal Jews and the early stories reflected that. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/30/opinion/30lundegaard.html?_r=1

    3. Re:Truth, Justice, and the American Way by ari_j · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Don't miss the other obvious implication: Truth and Justice are mutually exclusive.

    4. Re:Truth, Justice, and the American Way by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      The only thing it implies is that there's more to "the American Way" than there is to the combination of "Truth and Justice." Of course they never really spell-out exactly what "the American Way" is... but your criticism here is just weird.

      Car analogy: if I say, "cars, motorcycles, and motor vehicles" am I implying that cars are not motor vehicles?

    5. Re:Truth, Justice, and the American Way by kalirion · · Score: 1

      Don't miss the other obvious implication: Truth and Justice are mutually exclusive.

      If they were, you couldn't fight for both of them now, could you? Unless you're a politician of course.

    6. Re:Truth, Justice, and the American Way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does saying "I fight for the rights of burn victims and shooting victims" imply that one can't be both shot and burned?

    7. Re:Truth, Justice, and the American Way by ari_j · · Score: 1

      I meant mutually exclusive in the sense that the concepts they embody would not intersect on a Venn diagram, not in the sense that you can't have both at once. I should probably have written that better. :)

    8. Re:Truth, Justice, and the American Way by religious+freak · · Score: 1

      Might want to check your logic on that one...

      --
      If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
  20. No discussion of Superman is complete without by wiredog · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    A citation of Man of Steel, Woman of Kleenex, by Larry Niven.

    Assume a mating between Superman and a human woman designated LL for convenience.

    Either Superman has gone completely schizo and believes himself to be Clark Kent; or he knows what he's doing, but no longer gives a damn. Thirty-one [now 68+] years is a long time. For Superman it has been even longer. He has X-ray vision; he knows just what he's missing. ...

    The problem is this. Electroencephalograms taken of men and women during sexual intercourse show that orgasm resembles "a kind of pleasurable epileptic attack." One loses control over one's muscles.

    Superman has been known to leave his fingerprints in steel and in hardened concrete, accidentally. What would he to to the woman in his arms during what amounts to an epileptic fit?

    ...

    Superman would literally crush LL's body in his arms, while simultaneously ripping her open from crotch to sternum, gutting her like a trout.

    Lastly, he'd blow off the top of her head.

    Ejaculation of semen is entirely involuntary in the human male, and in all other forms of terrestrial life. It would be unreasonable to assume otherwise for a kryptonian. But with kryptonian muscles behind it, Kal-El's semen would emerge with the muzzle velocity of a machine gun bullet. (*One can imagine that the Kent home in Smallville was riddled with holes during Superboy's puberty. And why did Lana Lang never notice that?*)

    1. Re:No discussion of Superman is complete without by MartinSchou · · Score: 2, Informative

      That's actually something they paid credit to in Hancock (DVD only). Some of my friends thought it was a really tacky scene:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-tcxZ5VOBM

      To me though, it really shows how he cannot be completely intimate with someone. He has to warn the girl before having sex with her, and for good reason. She doesn't listen, and he saves her life by tossing her aside before his ejaculation punches holes in the ceiling.

      And of course she's now scared out of her mind and runs away through the bathroom window.

      If that's how all your intimate encounters progress ... you'd probably shy away from it completely.

    2. Re:No discussion of Superman is complete without by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In 1986, John Byrne did his reboot/relaunch/revamp/rewrite of Superman with a six-issue miniseries.

      At the end of the miniseries, Byrne had a page listing the influential Superman writers and artists.

      I couldn't stop laughing when I saw that he had included Niven's name on this list...

  21. Is this comic available as a torrent ? by sproketboy · · Score: 1

    Is this comic available as a torrent somewhere? I'd love to read the original.

    1. Re:Is this comic available as a torrent ? by clickety6 · · Score: 2, Informative
      --
      ----------------------------------- My Other Sig Is Hilarious -----------------------------------
    2. Re:Is this comic available as a torrent ? by ari_j · · Score: 1

      Is that, on page 5, the first recorded printed misuse of your in place of you're?

    3. Re:Is this comic available as a torrent ? by Dr.+Evil · · Score: 1

      Give the guy a break, he's an alien.

      I'm impressed at the writing. Most comics I've read have been unbearable, this is actually really good. It's campy, but really imaginative and cool.

    4. Re:Is this comic available as a torrent ? by sproketboy · · Score: 1

      Thanks. Nice link!

    5. Re:Is this comic available as a torrent ? by ari_j · · Score: 1

      I was just surprised at how long ago that misuse had become a problem, particularly in as well-regarded a thing as Superman.

  22. Comics are a crooked business by BenEnglishAtHome · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Collectible comics, that is.

    I was heavy into collecting at one time. I still have my #1s of "The Nam" and whatever reboot cycle Supes was going through at the time.

    Here's what put me off the whole business: At that time, the business model of collectible comics dealers was based on ripping off little boys. They'd come into shops with their few bucks and dealers would sell them crap by always hinting that "This is gonna be the next TMNT #1! Buy it now! Only a buck over cover!" I've never known any business that bought stock, put it out, stored it away when everyone realized it was crap and didn't sell, then dragged the same crap out of storage a year or two later, slapped on a higher price, and called it a "collectible". That shit is just ridiculous.

    What broke the camel's back was when I managed, some time after the fact, to piece together what had happened with the Dark Knight hardcovers. When they were announced, you could prepay something like $75 and reserve a signed copy. There were delays and by the time all the signed copies had shipped, the book had totally blown up. The demand for the signed collectible hard cover was huge, with new stock selling for $300.

    Every lousy fucking dealer in Houston that I was able to get info on (except one, A Few Books and Records on the SW side), told every kid who had prepaid for their book that their book never arrived and the order needed to be canceled. They refunded the $75. Some of them didn't wait a week before they stuck that kid's book in the display case with a huge price tag on it.

    With just one exception, every comics dealer I've ever known has been a scumbag.

    1. Re:Comics are a crooked business by Nyder · · Score: 1

      ...

      What broke the camel's back was when I managed, some time after the fact, to piece together what had happened with the Dark Knight hardcovers. When they were announced, you could prepay something like $75 and reserve a signed copy. There were delays and by the time all the signed copies had shipped, the book had totally blown up. The demand for the signed collectible hard cover was huge, with new stock selling for $300.

      Every lousy fucking dealer in Houston that I was able to get info on (except one, A Few Books and Records on the SW side), told every kid who had prepaid for their book that their book never arrived and the order needed to be canceled. They refunded the $75. Some of them didn't wait a week before they stuck that kid's book in the display case with a huge price tag on it.

      With just one exception, every comics dealer I've ever known has been a scumbag.

      ya, I preorder/reserved a copy of that book and got a refund, plus a $25 gift certificate to the comic book store because "they didn't receive enough".

      bastards.

      --
      Be seeing you...
    2. Re:Comics are a crooked business by gad_zuki! · · Score: 1

      When I read comics, I read them for the story. I didnt see them as an investing opportunity. Shame so many did.

    3. Re:Comics are a crooked business by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      The thing that bugs me most about comics is their ANCIENT distribution model. The high event in comics blogging is the monthly release of the Diamond catalog.

      The only exposure DC and Marvel have outside the local comics shop (if you're lucky enough to even have one) is trade paperbacks that usually end up in bookstores-- of course, they don't bother printing trade paperbacks of most of their material in the first place. Marvel pulls nasty tricks, too, like printing a trade paperback of a popular series, but then *only* offering it for sale in the local comics shop... WTF Marvel!?

      Hell, it's 2010, and it's still hard to find comic issues at reputable online retailers-- why!? Amazon was founded on printed material, it offers subscriptions to tons of products, why can't I go on Amazon and buy me a year's worth of Detective Comics? Where's the sense in that?

      Marvel has made some in-roads here, and their online viewer is adequate. It's just boggles the mind that it took *this* long for comics to embrace technology, long after every other medium had already done it. It boggles the mind.

    4. Re:Comics are a crooked business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quote South Park, "The Simspons did it."

    5. Re:Comics are a crooked business by abigor · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure this is Diamond's fault. They have the distribution locked down, unfortunately. I'm sure Marvel, DC, Image, etc. would love it if you could go to Amazon and subscribe to Wolverine, Detective, Cowboy Ninja Viking, or whatever, but their exclusive deal with Diamond won't allow it. And no Diamond, no direct market.

      My hope is that eventually there will be a rebellion of sorts, kind of like what happened with creator-owned characters, and the distribution model will open up. Smaller publishers that Diamond refused to carry, like Dave Sim of Cerebus fame, managed to get distribution without them.

      Note that Diamond was investigated by the US Justice Dept. for antitrust litigation in the late '90s, but nothing came of it, unfortunately.

    6. Re:Comics are a crooked business by Gizzmonic · · Score: 1

      Comics are a worse mess than ever now. I used to read when I was a kid, and I tried to buy some Green Lanterns lately. The "Blackest Night" crossover does not have a printed checklist in the comics, they are already printing trade paperbacks with part of the story in them mere months after the publishing of the original comics. I gave up. DC, if you want anyone who's not a total comics freak to read your stories, you need to have a checklist, and a "Blackest Night: Chapter [X]" on the cover of each book. They had no problem doing this in the 80's and 90's. Did you forget how?

      --
      (-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
  23. so, slashdot by nimbius · · Score: 1

    has anyone read this one yet? Ive only watched the movie, so i thought buying issue #1 would be a good way to figure out more about super-mans. is there more than one? why is his underwear on the outside?

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
    1. Re:so, slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He actually is triple protected in case of accidents. pair underneath his tights, the tights themselves, and the underwear outside.

      then again, he could just wear a pair of depends...

  24. Here you go! by Aexia · · Score: 1

    Action Comics #0, Zero Hour event tie-in from 1994.

  25. A private buyer ? by CharlyFoxtrot · · Score: 1

    This belongs in a museum !

    --
    If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
  26. An even bigger question... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How did a basement-dweller get his Cheeto-and-semen-coated hairy palms on $1M?

  27. A Million?? by BigBlueOx · · Score: 1

    A million DOLLARS?? For this old thing?? Hell, he could have had this copy for half that. Tard.

  28. hmm by nomadic · · Score: 1

    I remember reading it (the reprint, obviously, not the original). It was pretty bad.

  29. No, Batman is the *really* annoying one by elrous0 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Yeah, well Superman is one of the few superheroes I *do* like. The superheroes I find truly annoying are the ones like Batman who have no special powers and yet act totally contrary to any form of rationality. If Superman is *overspecced* to be a superhero, the the exact opposite is true of Batman and other "regular human" superheroes. They fly in the face of every bit of common sense imaginable. They have no superpowers, but refuse to use guns or other practical weaponry which might actually give them an edge (there is a reason cops and soldiers carry those guns). They wear absolutely ridiculous costumes in which no one could possibly fight (Batman's costume is the worst of the lot--with no peripheral vision and that silly cape in the way he would be laughably easy to beat down). They have silly modes of transportation (why would a supposed vigilante who's trying to stay under the radar drive something as gaudy and easy to spot as the Batmobile/Batcopter/etc.?!?). Basically, the only "normal human" superhero who has ever made any sense was The Punisher (closer to what a real-world vigilante superhero would look like than any moron running around with a big cape on).

    Superman may have too much Deus ex machina going for him. But at least he makes *some* sense, given his set of superpowers. Sure, it's silly for him to wear a cape too. But at least with him it doesn't matter (Superman could fight in a ballerina costume and still be every bit as effective). With Batman--the cape, the stupid costume, the ridiculous car, etc. are all just fucking stupid. He's supposed to be this smart detective, but he dresses like a drag queen and acts like brain-dead retard.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  30. If we can add silly suffixes by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    If we can add silly suffixes then what about the ironic age.

    Like new outfit Ug, really suit you. I guess not fit the bear either?

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  31. Eugenics by michaelmalak · · Score: 1

    Wow, I never knew Superman was inspired by the Progressive Era fascination with eugenics. I guess after the Nazis it all got whitewashed with "high gravity" on Krypton and "lack of Kryptonite on Earth".

    1. Re:Eugenics by DesScorp · · Score: 1

      After WWII, you'd have never known that the eugenics movement was so popular in Europe and the US. But everyone from Teddy Roosevelt to Margaret Sanger to Lenin thought the idea was just dandy, that a glorious new scientific dawn had arrived that would bring the perfectibility of man. Hitler simply took the idea to its inevitable conclusion. Thus the rush to whitewash the west's involvement after the war.

      --
      Life is hard, and the world is cruel
  32. I knew it by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1

    It was in a Henson the storyteller like production, that did Greek mythology.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  33. Bullshit by Moraelin · · Score: 1

    Bullshit.

    1. Actually human civilization has existed for a long time without coinage or an equivalent in metals at all. See, for example, ancient Egypt. But really, the first coins appear around 550-600 BC in Anatolia, or according to other historians there is some stuff in 900 BC in China which could pass for a coin. Even the equivalent in metal weight comes actually after more than a millenium and a half of human civilization.

    2. Even then, not everyone used gold. Chinese coins for example had for millenia been _bronze_, which had the advantage that at least you could do something with it. If all else failed, you could actually melt those coins and make a sword out of that bronze, or even viceversa. (Private minting of bronze coins was actually allowed for most of their history.) Or in ancient Egypt, we have plenty of transactions which happened in deben (a weight unit) of copper, or bronze, or whatever.

    So basically if human civilization had actually waited for gold to begin, you'd probably still wear a leather loincloth and hunt gazelles.

    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
    1. Re:Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's not forget that the salt trade drove the rise of the Mediterranean and African civilizations.

      Gold is "only" valuable because people want it. True, and trivially so. The real news is how irrational this desire is, considering the utility of other potential stores of value.

  34. The buyer remains anonymous... by AugstWest · · Score: 1

    ...however, Kevin Smith has been spotted acting very giddily today.

  35. Nicolas Cage is probably kicking himself by haruchai · · Score: 1

    http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=1536

    According to link about, he got a total of $1.6 milliion for his entire collection, including a mere $86,000 for
    Action Comics #1.
    True that was 7 years ago but geez, what a markup. Consider all the stories about his financial woes, I bet
    he wishes he'd held on to his collection.

    --
    Pain is merely failure leaving the body
  36. Re:Anonyrnous, huh? by Tetsujin · · Score: 1

    Wow, the guy who paid 1 million must feel like a jackass now.

    You don't buy a vintage comic book to read it. You buy it to have it. The story has, no doubt, been republished in collections and so on - even without the download there were surely ways to read the story, if that's all you wanted.

    --
    Bow-ties are cool.
  37. That's why I always preferred Batman by srobert · · Score: 1

    Even as a kid I noticed that nearly all the comic book heroes had super human powers, bestowed on them by magic or some other pseudo-scientific explanation, except for Batman. Under the suit Batman was still only human. Very smart, in good physical shape, disciplined, and with all the technology his billionaire wealth could buy, but still just human. Comparing them to the ancient myths, Batman was like Odysseus, an extraordinarily smart man, while Superman, Spiderman, (Hercules, Perseus) etc. were gods. In my childhood fantasies, my understanding was that Superman's powers would forever be denied to me in the real world. But Batman was something I could actually become. (At least that's what I thought when I was five).

  38. This happens in the watch biz all the time by professorguy · · Score: 1

    This is a bunch of crap. Watch companies do this all the time to bump up the interest in 'collecting' their wares. The plan is simple:

    1) Buy the item in a private sale at whatever price.
    2) Hand it over to an auction house for sale.
    3) Have an accomplice bid for the piece. If you want real big numbers (so you get the free publicity), bring 2 friends to bid against each other.
    4) Advertise that your company's 'collectibles' are worth these huge prices, based on the auction price.
    5) Profit when everyone runs out to buy the next big 'collectible.'

    You don't actually believe this BS, do you?

  39. Re:Anonyrnous, huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    woooosh.

  40. bite me by Tetsujin · · Score: 1

    woooosh.

    Yeah, OK, whoosh. Fine. Whatever. I didn't see anything to the post I replied to apart from face value. If there's anything more to that post, I still don't see it. So as far as I'm concerned, you "whoosh"ed me for no goddamn reason.

    --
    Bow-ties are cool.
    1. Re:bite me by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Fine. Whatever. I didn't see anything to the post I replied to apart from face value.

      That is kind of how sarcasm works. Or in your case, doesn't.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    2. Re:bite me by Tetsujin · · Score: 1

      Fine. Whatever. I didn't see anything to the post I replied to apart from face value.

      That is kind of how sarcasm works.

      No, the way sarcasm works is that one can see something beyond the face value of the message. That's central to the whole idea of sarcasm.

      --
      Bow-ties are cool.
    3. Re:bite me by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Some part of doesn't giving you trouble, Einstein?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  41. Value is subjective by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    Let's say I already have enough CPUs, as many as I can fit. My legs are tired, though. You, on the other hand, have a computer without a CPU and you prefer to sit on the floor because you're into manga. Or something like that.

    The obvious problem with the GP's system is that the obvious solution to our problems wouldn't make sense.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    1. Re:Value is subjective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, tbh, I just wanted to see how deep a hole Mikael would dig himself since his post is among the most clueless I've ever encountered on slashdot. Now, anybody with the tiniest comprehension of economics knows that defining value as whatever someone is willing to pay is the only thing that makes sense. It's the POV of whoever possesses the item, which matters and nobody in posession of a CPU or stool would sell either one to you or me cheaper depending on our needs (otherwise it would have a gift component).