Pop quiz

By -
Let us define an object as something you could pick up, perhaps with a forklift and put in the van and bring somewhere. So, say, the Taj Mahal will not be an "object" our criteria.

Today's quiz:

1) What was the most valuable object in the world in the early 1700s?

2) What is the most valuable object in the world today?

By the way, I know the (likely) answer to number one, but not to number two.


Comments

  1. Andy12:16 PM

    Does an F-22 fighter jet count as an object? Apparently $137 million to $350+ million each, depending on if/how you roll development costs into the per-unit cost.

    As for 1700s, my wild guess would be a relic of some sort.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah5:44 PM

      Could thought Andy, but I'm thinking of something that you could, say, put in your house. In fact, the object from the 1700s was in someone's house.

      Delete
    2. gcallah7:43 PM

      Whoops, Siri again. "Good thought."

      Delete
  2. Wabulon5:27 PM

    1) The king of England (assuming the forklift criterion passes).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Gabe Ruth12:56 PM

      I was thinking some Tsar's consort. Grabbing a king, he might get replaced by a rival and the amount you could get to return him would be limited to what the loyalists could get together.

      Delete
  3. Samson Corwell7:27 PM

    The Bahia Emerald?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah7:42 PM

      Oddly, Sampson, The Wikipedia page is quiet about when it was mined. Are you putting it forward as the most valuable object now, or in the early 1700s?

      Delete
    2. Samson Corwell11:31 AM

      Most valuable object now.

      Delete
  4. Wabulon8:47 PM

    Just when I am getting interested in the discussion, it peters out as the blog rolls inexorably on. Than is my main objection to this whole blog idea. Same with my stuff. I think I'll take a vacation, but I'll be back...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. John Goes1:40 PM

      That's what follow-up posts are for.

      Delete
    2. gcallah3:13 PM

      The Peacock Throne.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more