Of all the evil that Microsoft has unleashed on this earth the one particular misdeed that affects me most intimately is their new menuing feature. It seems like a small thing but man does it bug the hell out of me.
You click on a menu and it only shows a few options, different ones each time, and then forces you to click on an arrow to see the rest. I mean -- what on earth is the value in that. I can possibly understand hiding 'Scenario Analysis' or some such nonsense but to hide 'Print', 'Save', or 'New Document'??
The great thing about a windowing system is that once you learn the interface it is supposed to be easy to use. Now every time I need to do something unusual such as print I have to go searching for it.
If anyone knows how to shut off this feature I will be very, VERY, thankful.
Update: It's a miracle!! Tools->Customize->Options->'Always Show All Menus'
Monday, March 21, 2005
I am not sure whether I am impressed or horrified. A little of both I guess.
(Hat Tip: Marginal Revolution)
(Hat Tip: Marginal Revolution)
I was reading the March 21st edition of the Columbia Spectator and came across the article, "Protesters March On War's Second Anniversary". The article is rather tame but two snippets seemed to jump out at me as just a little ludicrous.
The first was a sign stating "Saddam didn't raise my tuition". I am guessing that a reader of this slogan is to infer that someone who did raise the placard holder's tuition was in fact worse than Saddam. I admire the honesty of this self-centered protester but wonder if (s)he know what Saddam did do.
It turns out that the organizer of this anti-war protest was none other than Nellie Bailey. Nellie's full time job is being the president of the Harlem Tenants' Council. Nellie had this to say
Saturday's protest had far reaching implications, not only for the anti-war movement, but for the black community of New York and beyond. "Today we have raised the bar and debunked the myth that blacks have no visibility in the leadership of the anti-war movement".
Well I for one am glad that we debunked that myth. It had gone on for far to long. What does the Harlem Tenants' Council do exactly?
The first was a sign stating "Saddam didn't raise my tuition". I am guessing that a reader of this slogan is to infer that someone who did raise the placard holder's tuition was in fact worse than Saddam. I admire the honesty of this self-centered protester but wonder if (s)he know what Saddam did do.
It turns out that the organizer of this anti-war protest was none other than Nellie Bailey. Nellie's full time job is being the president of the Harlem Tenants' Council. Nellie had this to say
Saturday's protest had far reaching implications, not only for the anti-war movement, but for the black community of New York and beyond. "Today we have raised the bar and debunked the myth that blacks have no visibility in the leadership of the anti-war movement".
Well I for one am glad that we debunked that myth. It had gone on for far to long. What does the Harlem Tenants' Council do exactly?
Sunday, March 13, 2005
If you have not used Google Maps yet then you really should. As usual the good folks at Google just do everything better.
Try this:
1. Enter an address such as '101 west 78th street, ny, ny'. Click on Search.
2. Click on Local Search
3. Enter something of interest such as 'Pizza' or 'Kosher'. Click on Search.
4. Marvel at the wonder of Google's genius
Try this:
1. Enter an address such as '101 west 78th street, ny, ny'. Click on Search.
2. Click on Local Search
3. Enter something of interest such as 'Pizza' or 'Kosher'. Click on Search.
4. Marvel at the wonder of Google's genius
Tuesday, March 01, 2005
I took my Managerial Economics Mid-Term exam yesterday. As usual my genius professor created a new bondoogle. There was the regular test and then there was a 20 point bonus question. It seem to me that if we are all marked on a curve (only the top 12 students get the top grade, the next 36 students get the middle grade, and the bottom 12 students get the lowest grade) then a bonus question is really just a question. All animals are creates equal; some are just more equal than others. For an economist she sure seems to engage in some silly behavior.
But anyway....
I had the chance to think about some fundamental economic principles and how they relate to Judaism. The two things that struck me are the Jewish prohibition on charging interest on loans and the of opening competing businesses (Hasagat Gvul). I will take them one at a time.
It seems to me that if economics are to be believed then every resource carries an opportunity cost. If I can get 10% for my money in some investment I will demand an equal return for an alternate investment with similar risk. If I can get any percentage return on savings then there is a loss of economic value if I invest interest free. As such I may, because of my feelings of deep love for my fellow man, decide to lend someone money interest free but in doing so I am damaging the world in which I live. I have cheated the world of the economic potential of my capital. I have literally destroyed value. Like an Oxford graduate sitting at home watching reality television my money would be literally wasting away. I honestly cannot understand how any mature society is expected to live with this prohibition.
Microeconomics defines two possible states of the world. In the Short-Run the price of a commodity is defined by the push and pull of supply and demand between consumers and producer firms that are already in the business of producing that specific commodity. The defining principle of the Short-Run is that new firms cannot enter. In this state of the world prices will settle somewhere at the maximum possible output of the total universe of supplier firms. If this level of production is below demand then prices will rise.
In the Long-Run however new firms can enter. And they will enter until the price hits the cost of production. This is known as the point of indifference. Producer firms are indifferent to producing the final unit since they will break even. While there is still any profit to be made more firms will enter. Firms that are less productive (meaning that they produce at a cost higher than the new entrants) will cease to produce and have their production taken over by more productive firms. In the end consumers get the best possible price and the best producers serve them products.
This natural progression from the short to long term cannot happen with a prohibition against competing businesses. Many will argue that it is not fair to take away someone's livelihood. But is it fair for a consumer to overpay for inferior goods. How many people have lived in a small Jewish neighborhood and been held hostage to a terrible pizza restaurant run by a rude manager whose only reason for staying in business was the threat of a Hasagat Gvul charge? I think it is clear that anti-competitive prohibition is a damaging one.
But anyway....
I had the chance to think about some fundamental economic principles and how they relate to Judaism. The two things that struck me are the Jewish prohibition on charging interest on loans and the of opening competing businesses (Hasagat Gvul). I will take them one at a time.
It seems to me that if economics are to be believed then every resource carries an opportunity cost. If I can get 10% for my money in some investment I will demand an equal return for an alternate investment with similar risk. If I can get any percentage return on savings then there is a loss of economic value if I invest interest free. As such I may, because of my feelings of deep love for my fellow man, decide to lend someone money interest free but in doing so I am damaging the world in which I live. I have cheated the world of the economic potential of my capital. I have literally destroyed value. Like an Oxford graduate sitting at home watching reality television my money would be literally wasting away. I honestly cannot understand how any mature society is expected to live with this prohibition.
Microeconomics defines two possible states of the world. In the Short-Run the price of a commodity is defined by the push and pull of supply and demand between consumers and producer firms that are already in the business of producing that specific commodity. The defining principle of the Short-Run is that new firms cannot enter. In this state of the world prices will settle somewhere at the maximum possible output of the total universe of supplier firms. If this level of production is below demand then prices will rise.
In the Long-Run however new firms can enter. And they will enter until the price hits the cost of production. This is known as the point of indifference. Producer firms are indifferent to producing the final unit since they will break even. While there is still any profit to be made more firms will enter. Firms that are less productive (meaning that they produce at a cost higher than the new entrants) will cease to produce and have their production taken over by more productive firms. In the end consumers get the best possible price and the best producers serve them products.
This natural progression from the short to long term cannot happen with a prohibition against competing businesses. Many will argue that it is not fair to take away someone's livelihood. But is it fair for a consumer to overpay for inferior goods. How many people have lived in a small Jewish neighborhood and been held hostage to a terrible pizza restaurant run by a rude manager whose only reason for staying in business was the threat of a Hasagat Gvul charge? I think it is clear that anti-competitive prohibition is a damaging one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)