From owner-freebsd-chat  Tue Apr  1 16:34:35 1997
Return-Path: <owner-chat>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id QAA18676
          for chat-outgoing; Tue, 1 Apr 1997 16:34:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rocky.mt.sri.com (rocky.mt.sri.com [206.127.76.100])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA18671
          for <chat@freebsd.org>; Tue, 1 Apr 1997 16:34:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from nate@localhost) by rocky.mt.sri.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id RAA10694; Tue, 1 Apr 1997 17:30:46 -0700 (MST)
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 17:30:46 -0700 (MST)
Message-Id: <199704020030.RAA10694@rocky.mt.sri.com>
From: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org>
Cc: nate@mt.sri.com (Nate Williams), proff@suburbia.net, chat@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Internal clock
In-Reply-To: <199704020005.RAA12505@phaeton.artisoft.com>
References: <199704020008.RAA10516@rocky.mt.sri.com>
	<199704020005.RAA12505@phaeton.artisoft.com>
X-Mailer: VM 6.22 under 19.15 XEmacs Lucid
Sender: owner-chat@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

Terry Lambert writes:
> > *old-timer-advice-mode-on*
> > 
> > As my pappy used to say, you can have *anything* you want in life, you
> > just can't have *everything* you want.  So, if you want to be as rich as
> > Bill Gates, you can be.  But, in the process you will probably also be
> > as despised as he is, because in the path to get there he stepped on
> > alot of people, offended most of his early partners, and basically gave
> > up on having a 'normal' life/family.
> > 
> > Sure, you can have that if you want, but you have to give up alot of
> > other things you want in life.
> > 
> > *old-timer-advice-mode-off*
> > 
> > You can have anything you want Terry, you just can't have everything.
> > You want everything, and I'm sorry to be the one that breaks it to you
> > but it ain't gonna happen.
> 
> Who said I wanted to be as rich as Bill Gates?  You were the one
> putting forth "as rich as Bill Gates" as a measure of success or
> failure of a given approach to solving a particular problem.

No, I said that if you had fore-knowledge of all the necessary
requirements for a project *before* you finished it, you'd be as rich as
Bill Gates.  Your reply was:

> You were attributing "We'd all be richer than Bill Gates" to having
> preknowledge, implying that there isn't a formula that you can follow
> to get the same results.

Since I don't believe even you think a person can have intimate
fore-knowledge of what someone intends to do with a piece of software, I
took it that you wanted to a formula to follow so you could be as rich
as Bill, since the former is so out of touch w/reality that you couldn't
possibly be thinking it.

> > > Software does not mutate.
> > 
> > You've never been involved with 'Real' software projects then, and again
> > are showing your ignorance of how the real world does things.
> > 
> > When you gonna enter the real world?
> 
> When you send me one of your nifty CDROMs where the bits apparently
> change over time (how does you-all get 'way with callin' dem "ROMs"?).

Bits on a piece of plastic aren't software, any more than molecules of
metal makes something a 'car'.  They may have things in common, but
don't lump them together.


Nate