Hi David, you wrote:
Software—accounted for as an
expense since recognizing it as an asset doesn't pass muster with
accountants—is far, far outside the constraints of Newtonian principles.
Why doesn't it pass with accountants? Not being one, it always
seems messy at this time of year while I am getting my taxes ready, and my
company taxes ready, and my computer system board got fried about three weeks
ago. I am just now getting back to full automation.
Accounting for software development costs in separate years from
before the software produces revenue would make the most sense to me. You are
building an asset; it should be treated accordingly.
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of David Eddy
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 5:47 AM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Grand Unified Theories
the very many practical applications use old theories that
are known to be be inadequate in the details. Good old-fashioned
Newtonian mechanics is a prime example.
For your bookshelf... "Relevance Lost" by H.
Thomas Johnson & Robert S. Kaplan
I met Johnson at a Management Accounting seminar in 1992.
He opened his closing keynote thusly: "We have come to the end of
our ability to understand & describe the world around us within the
confines of Newtonian physics."
When he delivered this talk, he was unaware he was standing
within 100' of an Isaac Newton apple tree.
Double entry accounting—to which we are all beholden—was
created from the same intellectual ferment that produced The Calculus.
Software—accounted for as an expense since recognizing it as
an asset doesn't pass muster with accountants—is far, far outside the
constraints of Newtonian principles.
Johnson studied under Alfred DuPont Chandler, author of
Babson Park, MA