Re: Great SWT Program
- From: bcd@xxxxxxxxxxx (Bent C Dalager)
- Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 02:36:33 +0000 (UTC)
In article <232df502-30f1-45ac-b50e-9cb0ad77c8c9@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
<twerpinator@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Dec 27, 9:42 pm, b...@xxxxxxxxxxx (Bent C Dalager) wrote:
The accumulated future benefit is as large as needed, if you look far
enough ahead.
No
YES ... IF, that is, you look far enough ahead.
No. You see, people have a limited life exptancy and you cannot
reasonably calculate them as being productive after they've died.
Call the startup cost x and the net benefit per unit time y.
Your mathematical model is too simple. There is also a maintenance or
retraining cost that must be paid of the person stops using emacs for
some period of time.
Least of all the especially insidious suggestion that perhaps I
*admire you*. Shudder. No way! There are slime molds that I admire
more.
Heh. So you /do/ admire me, if only a very little :-)
I don't know /what/ you guys are. I suggest you call a session between
Twisted, Bbound, Twerpinator and whoever else you have rummaging
around in there and try to reach some consensus.
We are the Ghosts of Christmas Past, Present, and Future, and we
foresee that you are heading for a dismal end in the near future, E-
Bent-neezer Scrooge!
You appear to have been watching too much telly during the holidays
:-)
Especially if you honestly believe that Economics 101 is wrong.
Economics 101 assumes a very simplified, naive model of the
market. This model works for some things and falls completely apart
for some others. It is "wrong" in some of the same ways that Newton
was "wrong": it works for the normal stuff, but for more complicated
stuff we need different theories.
(You may want to look up "Newton" and perhaps "Einstein" to understand
the above - they are both well-known physicists and will be mentioned
in all decent encyclopedia.)
The
last bunch of people to hold that belief had their little workers'
paradise implode under the growing strains of an inability to actually
achieve decent productivity, as I recall
You are mistaken again. The communists understood market economics
very well and Marxist theory is quite clear about how one needs to
have a capitalist system before a socialist one can take over since
capitalism creates wealth whileas socialism destroys it. And then one
needs to alternate into capitalism again to build more wealth for the
next period of socialism, etc. Marxism is naive in an entirely
different manner: in believing that people will not exploit a
socialist system for all that it is worth - and I also suspect that
this intermittent switching between different systems will prove
untenable in practice.
(Of course, the communists went and screwed it all up completely
because the head honchos were, after all, a bunch of frightened,
greedy little pigs :-)
, and millions upon millions
starved before wise old Gorbachev finally pulled the plug on that
particular failed experiment in Bent-world economics.
You can't even pick you already erroneous examples correctly? Can't
you do /anything/ right? If you want to lambast communism for its
millions of deaths, you use China's cultural revolution, or their
Great Leap Forward, or the Khmer Rogue of Cambodia.
[Bent reluctantly concedes my point, but also insults me]
Since I never said that there /was/ no web browser usage measuring
going on, there is of course nothing to concede. [implied insult
deleted]
But you'd said that no free software HAS such a thing as market share.
It doesn't. It has a user base.
Go to hell, liar.
Cheers,
Bent D
--
Bent Dalager - bcd@xxxxxxx - http://www.pvv.org/~bcd
powered by emacs
.
- References:
- Re: Great SWT Program
- From: twerpinator
- Re: Great SWT Program
- From: Bent C Dalager
- Re: Great SWT Program
- From: twerpinator
- Re: Great SWT Program
- Prev by Date: Re: Great SWT Program
- Next by Date: Re: Use of AssertionError
- Previous by thread: Re: Great SWT Program
- Next by thread: Re: Great SWT Program
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
