jesus X wrote:
>
> JTK wrote:
> > > But even an MBA can know nothing about software programming.
> > *Even* an MBA? Whoah, now *that's* crazy-talk!
>
> YEs, even an MBA as opposed to your minor. I would wager that someone with an
> MBA has put in more time and effort to learn more about the subject than someone
> with a minor.
>
Wh...?!?!? Do you know what an MBA even *is*? It has nothing
whatsoever to do with software.
> > > And despite your minor is Econ., you don't seem able to differentiate
> > > between being in business and making a profit.
> > I'd have to check the definitions, but actually I don't think there is a
> > difference. There certainly isn't one in the long run.
>
> I'll tell you now.
This aught to be good.
> Being in business is somehow trying to sell something to
> create revenue. Making a profit is when your revenues are greater than your
> expenses. As for being the same in the long run, it all depends on how you
> define 'long run'. Amazon hasn't made a dime since they opened. Nortel lost $19
> billions in a single quarter. Apple was hemorrhaging red ink for years.
>
If you don't make a profit, you only stay in operation so long as you
can sucker idiots into investing in your operation. And that cannot be
done indefinitely. Hence, asymptotically, no profit == no business.
> > What error again? You said something about Red Hat never having turned a
> > profit, is that correct?
>
> No, I said Redhat is not currently profitable.
So I made no misstatements then. So in fact it is you that is the
liar. Again.
> I do not know how they did in the
> beginning, but since the IPO, they have yet to make a profit. Amazon.com has
> never made a profit.
>
Indeed. One wonders why their name is coming up in this conversation.
> > >Comments to Mozilla's 'bloat',
> > So you are going to tell me Mozilla is *not* a complete pig?
>
> Compared to other browsers, that's exactly what I'm going to tell you. Show me a
> full install of IE that is 8 megs.
>
Can you find me complainig about Mathuzilla's download size? No? Then
why are you claiming that I ever made any such complaints?
> > > speed relating to the use of XUL, to start with.
> > I long ago proved that XUL was a major factor in Mozilla's slowness. Well
> > actually K-Meleon did. And from the few non-private posts that leak into
> > performance, it sounds like I'm not the only one who knows it.
>
> K-M does not use everything in Mozilla except the UI. It's just the renderer in
> another app.
Right - it's Mozilla with a native UI.
> This does not constitute proof.
The numbers I ran did. They were not well recieved by the Politburo.
> That's the equivalent of running
> Quake 3 on a Pentium with a double speed CD drive, then running it on an Athlon
> 4 with a 36x drive, and claiming the speed increase is solely due to the CD
> drive.
>
Rabbi, you truly are the King of Kings of Bad Similies.
> > >After being corrected about XUL, you persisted.
> > How can you correct an already-correct statement, complete with proof?
>
> Because the statement is neither correct, nor proven to be so.
>
It is correct, I proved it, and caught nothing but flack for my
yet-to-be-disproven numbers. In fact recently someone else has posted
similar results, in a pretty embarrasing attempt to *disprove* them!
> > Again rabbi, quote please. And no nitpicky "whaaaa! You said Mathuzilla had
> > only 3% market share when it's really a whopping 3.00001%!" crappola.
>
> No, you stated NO ONE used either Mozilla or Linux. You stated NO ONE was
> developing applications with Mozilla.
And those statements stand. Like I said, nitpicky crappola like "I use
it! I'm one person! That means you lied!" need not apply.
> And please do not call be rabbi.
Jesus was a rabbi, what's your beef? You know what the word means,
don't you? I mean you've taken all those Hebrew classes in addition to
the econ classes, right?
> I am
> neither Jewish, nor a rabbi, and frankly, it's childish. The joke was old after
> the first time you tried it.
>
It's freakin' hi-larious and you know it.
But is it more childish for me to call you rabbi, or you to call
yourself Jesus? Unless of course your name is actually Jesus....
> > You're either lying or you slept through it. You have demonstrated on two
> > occaisions now that you do not know the difference between fixed and variable
> > costs. IIRC, that's in the Remedial Econ 101 book just before the preface.
> > Regular Econ 101 expects you to have already consulted a dictionary and
> > figured it out before the first day of class.
>
> Then what exactly is your definition of those terms?
You took econ, right?
Right?
Helloooooo?
Shouldn't you know? (yes, you should)
> I wonder if this is the
> problem.
Of course it is. You don't know the first thing about economics, even
after having lied about taking an econ class, so you can't possibly know
what I'm talking about.
> If your definitions of these terms are similar to your ideas of "proof"
> about XUL and market penetration, then I see why we're going in circles.
>
You're the one going in circles Son of God.
> > > and find that it's
> > > riddled with factual errors
> > List one.
>
> I have done so on many occasions, including in this and the previous post.
>
Not yet you haven't, unless you're using Maozilla's "Invisible Ink"
mode.
> > Disregarding that, you are arguing from a position of ignorance, and now lying
> > about it. I think that if I indeed am 'registering your disagreement as
> > ignorance', I am being rather magnanamous.
>
> So, because I disagree with you, I am now lying. Incredible.
>
No, you're disagreeing with me, and you're also lying that you took an
econ class when you clearly know not the first thing about economics.
> > > A person who disagrees with you is not necessarily
> > > ignorant.
> > Technically no, practically yes.
>
> You sound like Rush Limbaugh with his "monopoly on the truth".
Nobody has a monopoly on the truth. The truth is available to all, for
free. Many, most, simply refuse to partake. You of all people should
know that, Master.
> How does
> disagreement with you make someone ignorant?
>
Because I partake of the truth. I see with unclouded eyes, hear with
unstopped ears. To deny me is to deny the truth, hence be ignorant of
it.
> > > In the matters going on pertaining to Mozilla, I'd say I'm much more
> > > qualified to discuss the technical details than you are.
> > How much of the Mathuzilla code have you written?
>
> Very little, due to time constraints.
>
> > Ok then, how much code of any sort have you written?
>
> More than I could recall, and in a number of languages.
>
Alright then, sounds like we're on pretty even technical footing as far
as evaluating Maozilla. Again, assuming you're telling the truth.
> > > Further more, you insist that Mozilla is Netscape, and vice versa. This is
> > > also not true,
> > It is true, and you're simply fooling yourself if you can't see it.
>
> Please show proof of this. Rather than telling you that you are wrong, I want to
> see why you feel you are right on this topic.
>
No, how about you tell me why I'm wrong. Should be easy if they're not
actually hand-in-glove, right? A simple counterexample would suffice to
blow my statement out of the water; perhaps some instance where AOL
really squealed about some particular Maozilla feature impacting their
bottom-line, but yet it got checked in anyway?
> --
> jesus X [ Booze-fueled paragon of pointless cruelty and wanton sadism. ]
> email [ jesusx @ who.net ]
> web [ http://burntelectrons.com ] [ Updated April 29, 2001 ]
> tag [ The Universe: It's everywhere you want to be. ]
> warning [ All your base are belong to us. ]
