I noticed that you have a lot of wasted “screen real estate” to the left of your formulas, while even the best of your monitors cant show all formulas at once.

I have a similar problem – I will rather see more lines of code at once rather than fewer lines and wasted space on the wide screen (sometimes labeled “short screen” by grumpy users).

There is a neat solution to this – try using the monitor in portrait mode.

On the software side you need a graphics card that supports 90 (or 270) degrees rotation. Most recent cards do, see this page: http://www.intel.com/support/graphics/sb/cs-016829.htm for the intel chips.

On the hardware side you need a monitor that can stand in portrait mode and quite a few models can. You need to detach the monitor from the stand and use a screwdriver to re-mount the mounting bracket sideways.

And with a bit of luck you can have the best of both worlds – use your good monitor in portrait mode and attach it to the external VGA port of your new laptop. Hopefully you can turn on rotation only for the external VGA port. Then extend your desktop across both monitors.

That’s something I have considered doing, but of course I have to be sufficiently advanced with the book to make that a viable option for the publishers Edward Elgar to agree to it. Since I only barely started the book before my teaching load derailed me this year, I can only contemplate that in a year or more from now, once the book is (say 75% finished).

To get to that point, I need time–hence my intention to purchase out my teaching next session (March-June 2010) so that I can focus predominantly on the book.

I notice that you’ve gone back to growing productivity and population. I had set up your prior 3-firm-sector model as a spreadsheet and noticed it kept running out of money due, I suppose, to constant population and productivity.

However nothing is written in stone on software. I did my work in Mathematica using its NDSolve routine for years before Mathcad implemented its own ODE solving system, and then improved the interface out of sight. If Mathematica (or Scientific Workplace for that matter, or Maple) did as good a job, there are other features in those systems that would make switching from Mathcad back to Mathematica very attractive.

Yes I know there’s a work around (from memory two fingers on the touch pad and then click the sole mouse button), but two fingers also slides the pointer off into the blue, and I got so &^@%!! frustrated with it that I installed an external mouse AND an external numeric keypad to get Page Up/Page Down and other navigation keys as well as a numeric pad…

And that was real fun, trying to balance that lot on a podium while I gave a speech. So I gave up and bought a small Netbook for a while; the MacBook gathers dust.

The Dell also has serious grunt for the money–8 Gig of RAM and a terabyte of hard disk space is pretty hard to beat for under $4K of donations.

It also appears that Windows 7 will finally be a decent operating system, and since my main programs are Windows-specific, I’ll stop fighting Microsoft and learn to live with them.

Ultimately I gave up and thought I’d be better off

Let us posit a group of people who each have something(s) ‘of value’ that they would like to trade with each other. Variables in the situation are:

Number of people can change;
People can change their sense of ‘value’;
Quantity and quality of commodities can change;
Hence, supply of or demand for commodities can change.

What imbalances may arise in the system?

People may ‘value’ self above the group – i.e. the inherent ‘value’ of the system could be impaired by the lesser ‘value’ of individual profit;
People could falsify ‘value’;
People could harm each other, steal commodities or fake their quantity or quality.
People could manipulate supply and demand to appropriate ‘value’.

Let us now say that as a matter of convenience, a new commodity $ is introduced to the system as both a ‘store of value’ and physical token who’s utility is ‘price’. ‘Price’ is a concept that reflects ‘value’ and relates one commodity to another.

Systemically, $ may behave exactly like any other commodity, however its
individual ‘value’ is one-dimensional (purchasing power) – absent is the intrinsic
multi-dimensional ‘value’ of other commodities – their qualities. $ (if its
‘value’ is recognised and accepted by others within the system) is used primarily
to access quality;
Besides this useful function, $ has an additional power – the risky theoretical
potential to both buy-up and control the whole system: previously no other
commodity could achieve this;
Because of this, $ is introduced as a commodity manufactured at will by
a few people exercising a monopoly on the commodity – (unlike other commodities
that are often difficult to monopolise, produce and control);
Obviously, $ cannot function beneficially in the system unless people can
trust in its legality, regulation and utility.

Because of $ power aspect, two potentials arise dependent on people’s sense
of ‘value’:

If people are ‘valued’ to be of greater intrinsic worth than the mere exercise
of power, or possession of comforts afforded by qualities arising from commodities
(particularly those surplus to basic livingness) – then it is a commitment
to discovering and uncovering of human potential, happiness, well being, health,
socialisation, education, evolution, development, ability to love and harmony
in relationships that will be prized above all else – human beings could enjoy
the maximum freedom from commodity production their desire for qualities will
allow, and the power of $ would be harnessed to human GDP (Greatest Development
Potential);
Conversely, if the exercise of power or desire for the comforts and qualities
of commodities is in the ascendant then human development will suffer inversely,
through systemic imbalances such as:

a. poor living conditions and constrained opportunities at one end of
the spectrum, and

b. the illusion of human betterment and dissatisfaction in the effort
spent concentrating power, commodities and their qualities at the other;

c. environmental degeneration through plunder of natural resources;

d. a lifetime wasted trying to find contentment in the use and possession
of the concretised energy that $ symbolises –

People’s time on this earth, the roles that they act out , their very life
– which is the most precious and richest asset they possess – will be harnessed
to a play (construct); rather than used to explore their real human potential.
Looking at the world today the results of both of these foci are apparent
and at war.

Greed is very easy to understand; so is kindness and generosity. Society offers
people happiness via the formulae of GDP (the current opiate for the masses).
Everybody knows it doesn’t work so there is no reason why we shouldn’t clean
the system up – or focus on something that is real such as ourselves.
Human desire begins with satisfying the body and its instincts, progresses
to creature comforts and possessions and unfolds as delight in form colour and
sound, science and the use of the intellect. Underlying these are a universal
desire for peace, harmonious relationships with each other and the beautiful
white blue green jewel of a planet with which we have been gifted; and the yearning
to experience true love – which ultimately lifts the human heart to seek its
Creator. It is our own nature that needs to be understood and ‘valued’ – allowed
to blossom, before $ can be harnessed to its true potential. When we lived in
caves security mattered. Today, it is people that should matter.
If you believe that within each human being is the greatest treasure,
then you should fight (as I believe Steve Keen does in tipping his lance) to
free that diamond from the clay.