> Sorry, I don't understand what you mean. I said energy not > time. Perhaps you could clarify. Energy is correlated to time. Powering a computer for 2 hours r

> Sorry, I don't understand what you mean. I said energy not > time. Perhaps you could clarify. Energy is correlated to time. Powering a computer for 2 hours requires more energy than powering a computer for 1 hour. Ditto for humans. A good programmer can finish the job in 1 week and eat just as much food as the bad programmer in the same amount of time. The programmer needs 2 weeks to get the job done. Therefore, in the time needed for to finish the job, the bad programmer has eaten twice as much food as the good programmer, and has powered on his work station for twice the amount of time. Therefore a good programmer should be twice as cheap as a bad programmer, according to your reasoning. I can guarantee you, good programmers are usually twice as expensive as bad programmers. > How much energy does Britney Spears use compared to an > average person? So yes, that hair cost a lot of energy to > make. Since an average human's hair costs practically nothing, Britney Spears's hair is infinitely more expensive. Therefore, Britney Spears has used infinite more energy to generate her hair. Since human energy comes from food, Britney Spears has eaten an infinite amount of food. Riiiight.