| From: | Brian W Allison <ballison@*******.WAM.UMD.EDU> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: computer economics in 2057 |
| Date: | Tue, 3 Dec 1996 19:14:57 -0500 |
> I'll try to make this SR relevant.
Ok, me too.
> > Unless you're suggesting that 'what the majority does is easiest and
> >best'. In which case I'll tell you that you're a fragging looney.
>
> Yes but a special flavor of fragging loonie - an economist.
Cool! Get two in a room together, sit back, and watch the fun!!
I like to tie them up and leave them in the Redmond Barrens. Then I pay
a gang 250 nuyen not to hurt them as long as they talk sensibly towards
each other.
Vicious...
> >than HTML. And *I* go for the widest distribution, irrelevent of what the
> >zombie population goes for.
>
> This seems counter to the first blurb, but the fragging loonie economist
> (Hereafter referred to as the FLE) would tend to agree
Not if the Zombie Population (hereafter referred to as the ZP) goes for
a less optimal solution. Say, native Zulu, because they like it and find
it less of a strain to use.
> > That *would* make it make sense, because then we'd forget the reasons
> >that we have for using what we use! Yeah, and we'd buy the concept that
> >compability with *you* and *the masses* is Very Important...
>
> Yes, the FLE would buy the concept that, because of network externalities,
> compatability with the masses is Very Important.
Sure, but since when did actual Economic theory run anything in this
country? Ok, actually up until Skinner. Then it was mind-washing and
population control.
> > The only difference is that a different percentage of people can use one
> >or the other. Oh, and that the PS people weren't saying that the RTF'ers
> >should get Linux and start acting proper.
>
> The 'different percentage' can be REAL important with economic externalities
> (trivial stuff like whether you go broke or make a profit).
Which is why the 'Web' is exploding - HTML is a higher percentage of the
population.
> The different spin I'd like to put on it is economics. From the point of
> view of the great unwashed masses, widespread compatability is very important.
> Even more important than, GASP! , SOTA technology.
Yes, but the unwashed masses are suits, corp sararimen, and wannabees.
We Deckers watch them for indicators of SOTA or for indicators of where to
deck - *not* for what we ought to do to our decks.
>
> It's pretty clear that the matrix has widespread standards for some level of
> universal compatability. On the other hand, the rise of sculpted systems also
> indicates that some level of incompatability may be built in as well. How does
> the 2057 matrix handle technological advancement while maintaining (as nearly as
> possible) universal compatability? Terry
Unfortunately, IMO that gets into an area such as "Mp = xMb, what is
'x'?"
Or, if we try to be too specific about how the future tech is done,
we'll only probabilistically guarantee our incorrectness.
Brian W. Allison
Computer Scientist Vocalist Would-be Poet Bicycler Scuba Diver
Hacker(0xca) Nerd(79) GenX(21) #include <witticism.h>
http://www.wam.umd.edu/~ballison
--- Unsolicited Commercial E-Mail is not welcome at this account ---
--- and will result in a US$500 fee per US Code Title 47 Sec 227. ---
