"At the time, Java was even more fragmented than it is now."
This is an incorrect statement. There were 3 "versions" of Java. Any perceived "fragmentation" was on the telephone end, not the fault of Java. MIDP is a configuration profile under ME, intended for mobile phones. It is not a "version". If it wasn't fully supported by the phones, you can blame the phones for insufficient support of the configuration.
Period. The end.
I am aware that not all phones worked the same, and not all supported Java the same (or even well). But that's not Java's fault.
"Why are some developers obsessed with performance? The user probably isn't. They don't care whether something loads 2 seconds quicker, or whether something has beautifully concise code."
Although I am a programmer, I am also a "user". And from purely a user perspective: I sure as hell DO care.
Slow programs are slow. Computers are supposed to wait on people, not the other way around.
"We would truly be better off without JavaScript, without NoSQL, without Ruby on Rails, and without the hipsters."
It's all very well and good to have opinions, but you make some strong specific complaints here without actually giving reasons for those opinions. Many people disagree with you.
What is your problem with JavaScript? JavaScript DOES, in fact, have some very serious problems. For a classic example that was linked to here just yesterday, try
[5, 10, 1].sort();
I happen to share your dislike for JavaScript, but I can give actual reasons for having that opinion.
NoSQL has its problems as well. While for some narrow uses it does offer great performance, if you step outside those narrow bounds even a little bit, you are forced to code many of the functions normally handled by a relational database, manually. I have never had to implement a huge distributed high-performance database, so in my case the NoSQL use-case is limited to very simple local non-relational data stores. But again, I can articulate a reason for not caring for it: the theoretical basis for it is weak, what actually constitute proper use-cases for it are rare, and it creates a lot of manual coding that relational databases handle on their own.
But now we come to Ruby and Rails (which are 2 different things). Yes, Ruby is a dynamic language, with all the (well-known) shortcomings of dynamic languages. But other than that, what do you have against them? Please be specific. We already know you don't like them. The question is: why?
"Define "supported" and "Java apps". At the time, Java was even more fragmented than it is now. Java could mean all kinds of things, but the Java you found on a Motorola Triplets phone or its descendants (including the RAZR, which I owned two models of) was pretty mean."
Nonsense. Between 2004 and 2006, Java was fully owned and developed by Sun Microsystems, and there were 3 versions: Enterprise Edition, Standard Edition and Mobile Edition (officially renamed in 2006 to EE, SE, and ME.
The Razr supported ("supports", since I still have mine and it's still working) full standard Java ME, and anybody could get the SDK and compile programs for it. While some phones might crash ME programs, that's the fault of the phones that didn't properly support ME, not a problem with Java.
As I wrote to the other guy above: the apps were fully functional, and I still have a quite nice billiards game, as well as some other apps, on that Razr phone. For a tiny screen, it works quite well.
But as for "define apps"... I don't get what you're trying to say. No, they did not have accelerometers or GPS or compass, because the phones in those days didn't have those features. But they could access things the phones DID have: buttons, screens, speaker, vibrator, etc.
"Not the same AC, and I can't say if he has a grudge or not. But it looks like either you're either grabbing at straws or seeing something that is not there to try to blame the original authors for the typical usual bad science reporting crap."
I am blaming them for a slightly misleading title. Nothing more.
Okay, I was wrong that this wasn't original research. BUT my basic point still holds: the title of both OP and the paper strongly suggest that it's NOT original research. And yes, that's their fault.
"Ask if anyone thought Objective C or Java were going to be important programming languages on phones in 2005?"
Repeat what I wrote above:
The Motorola Razr, which came out in 2004, while not Android was still a full-blown smartphone that supported Java apps. Yes, Java programming for phones important even then.
Except for local storage, maybe tilt & shake, simply not true.
Not only can device location be done, it is commonly done. Some implementations are better than others though.
Audio and video recording are both pretty simple, as long as you don't mind using Flash to do it.
Text to speech is also quite doable, as long as you don't expect it in realtime... and maybe even then. You just do the conversion on the server, and play the file via HTML5.
There are really very few things you can't do via HTML5, with the exception of recording audio and video directly. They're working on that, and in the meantime you can get around that with Flash. The problem is not that these things can't be done; the problem is that it's a pain in the ass, and not very practical at this time.
"Seems to contradict "The actual research may be new,"..."
Repeat: the title of both the paper and OP's article give the impression that this is not new research, and that the basics of the snake's aerodynamic profile were not already know.
But then, you knew I wrote that already, and were looking for something to argue with me about.
"... the goes on to back up the significance of those changes with fluid dynamics modeling, which it only cites one previous paper for."
The fluid dynamics is all fine. BUT... look at the titles of both OP and the research paper:
"Flying Snake Mysteries Revealed"
(There is no mystery. It was already known that the snake flattens its cross-section to an aerodynamic shape.)
"... how a bluff body cross-sectional shape contributes to gliding performance"
The (known) cross-section is an obvious airfoil-shape. We know basically "how" the cross-section leads to gliding performance. It may be that some actual fluid dynamics analysis has led to some better understanding of the details, but the title gives the impression that the basic aerodynamics were not already well understood.
The actual research may be new, but it is titled (and presented by OP) as though the BASICS weren't already known. The abstract does clarify it somewhat, but that doesn't change the fact that the title is misleading.
New generations are supposed to learn things from the older generations. That means picking up a book and watching National Geographic once in a while.
The fact that they didn't do their homework is not an excuse to call this "new research". It's re-inventing the wheel, which helps nobody.
"I think there is the free Word Viewer, and it existed even back in 2000.
Yes, but (A) you had to know it was available (many people did not), and (B) it had to be installed. Very few if any libraries, for example, had the Word reader installed. If you didn't have a computer, and only had access at the local library, you were SOL.
I am trying the F-Droid version, and indeed it seems to lack the restrictions of the Google Play version.
On the other hand, it doesn't find addresses worth a crap, and so far I haven't figured out how to make the voice announce U.S. units rather than km. I have it set to display U.S. units on the map, but the voice has kept giving me kilometers.
"PDF isn't proprietary... I'm not even sure it ever was (but it might have been)."
Yes, it is. While the specifications might be published, it belongs to Adobe and they reserve the right to change it any way they want, any time they want. (And they often have.)
Indeed. Yet another Google acquisition messed up, then tossed aside.
It might have made Google stronger, but that's not the way to make the economy stronger. It's far closer to corporate raiding than any kind of improvement to America.
"TV quackery has done so much damage to how people see "health" and medicine its almost fitting that this stuff starts to come about."
Even worse are TFAs about preliminary studies in genetically-altered mice that suggested relatively large doses of ONE antioxidant might assist cancer cells. ("Relatively large" because one of them was quoted as saying '10 times a normal diet'.")
Slashdot Mirror
Occam's Razor says very strongly that we already have a far more likely answer.
"Reading comprehension failure level: maximum."
No failure here. Quote drinkypoo:
"At the time, Java was even more fragmented than it is now."
This is an incorrect statement. There were 3 "versions" of Java. Any perceived "fragmentation" was on the telephone end, not the fault of Java. MIDP is a configuration profile under ME, intended for mobile phones. It is not a "version". If it wasn't fully supported by the phones, you can blame the phones for insufficient support of the configuration.
Period. The end.
I am aware that not all phones worked the same, and not all supported Java the same (or even well). But that's not Java's fault.
"There weren't just three versions: ME was far from homogenous."
There WERE just 3 versions. MIDP and PP are configuration profiles, not "versions". They're both ME.
"Why are some developers obsessed with performance? The user probably isn't. They don't care whether something loads 2 seconds quicker, or whether something has beautifully concise code."
Although I am a programmer, I am also a "user". And from purely a user perspective: I sure as hell DO care.
Slow programs are slow. Computers are supposed to wait on people, not the other way around.
"We would truly be better off without JavaScript, without NoSQL, without Ruby on Rails, and without the hipsters."
It's all very well and good to have opinions, but you make some strong specific complaints here without actually giving reasons for those opinions. Many people disagree with you.
What is your problem with JavaScript? JavaScript DOES, in fact, have some very serious problems. For a classic example that was linked to here just yesterday, try
[5, 10, 1].sort();
I happen to share your dislike for JavaScript, but I can give actual reasons for having that opinion.
NoSQL has its problems as well. While for some narrow uses it does offer great performance, if you step outside those narrow bounds even a little bit, you are forced to code many of the functions normally handled by a relational database, manually. I have never had to implement a huge distributed high-performance database, so in my case the NoSQL use-case is limited to very simple local non-relational data stores. But again, I can articulate a reason for not caring for it: the theoretical basis for it is weak, what actually constitute proper use-cases for it are rare, and it creates a lot of manual coding that relational databases handle on their own.
But now we come to Ruby and Rails (which are 2 different things). Yes, Ruby is a dynamic language, with all the (well-known) shortcomings of dynamic languages. But other than that, what do you have against them? Please be specific. We already know you don't like them. The question is: why?
"Define "supported" and "Java apps". At the time, Java was even more fragmented than it is now. Java could mean all kinds of things, but the Java you found on a Motorola Triplets phone or its descendants (including the RAZR, which I owned two models of) was pretty mean."
Nonsense. Between 2004 and 2006, Java was fully owned and developed by Sun Microsystems, and there were 3 versions: Enterprise Edition, Standard Edition and Mobile Edition (officially renamed in 2006 to EE, SE, and ME.
The Razr supported ("supports", since I still have mine and it's still working) full standard Java ME, and anybody could get the SDK and compile programs for it. While some phones might crash ME programs, that's the fault of the phones that didn't properly support ME, not a problem with Java.
As I wrote to the other guy above: the apps were fully functional, and I still have a quite nice billiards game, as well as some other apps, on that Razr phone. For a tiny screen, it works quite well.
But as for "define apps"... I don't get what you're trying to say. No, they did not have accelerometers or GPS or compass, because the phones in those days didn't have those features. But they could access things the phones DID have: buttons, screens, speaker, vibrator, etc.
I still have my old Razr, and it still has a pretty good (for a tiny screen) Java billiards game on it.
When it's plugged in, that is... the battery has been shot for a long time.
"That's about as viable a solution as using ActiveX."
Not so, since it can run in all major browsers on all major platforms.
"Flash is nearly dead now anyway; in a few years it'll have completely disappeared."
Sure... once those particular features have been copied by HTML 6 or 7.
"Not the same AC, and I can't say if he has a grudge or not. But it looks like either you're either grabbing at straws or seeing something that is not there to try to blame the original authors for the typical usual bad science reporting crap."
I am blaming them for a slightly misleading title. Nothing more.
Okay, I was wrong that this wasn't original research. BUT my basic point still holds: the title of both OP and the paper strongly suggest that it's NOT original research. And yes, that's their fault.
"Ask if anyone thought Objective C or Java were going to be important programming languages on phones in 2005?"
Repeat what I wrote above:
The Motorola Razr, which came out in 2004, while not Android was still a full-blown smartphone that supported Java apps. Yes, Java programming for phones important even then.
The Motorola Razr, in 2005, was a full-blown "smartphone" and supported Java apps. Though most Java apps at the time were just games.
"Thinks that you can NOT do in HTML5"
Except for local storage, maybe tilt & shake, simply not true.
Not only can device location be done, it is commonly done. Some implementations are better than others though.
Audio and video recording are both pretty simple, as long as you don't mind using Flash to do it.
Text to speech is also quite doable, as long as you don't expect it in realtime... and maybe even then. You just do the conversion on the server, and play the file via HTML5.
There are really very few things you can't do via HTML5, with the exception of recording audio and video directly. They're working on that, and in the meantime you can get around that with Flash. The problem is not that these things can't be done; the problem is that it's a pain in the ass, and not very practical at this time.
"Seems to contradict "The actual research may be new,"..."
Repeat: the title of both the paper and OP's article give the impression that this is not new research, and that the basics of the snake's aerodynamic profile were not already know.
But then, you knew I wrote that already, and were looking for something to argue with me about.
"... the goes on to back up the significance of those changes with fluid dynamics modeling, which it only cites one previous paper for."
The fluid dynamics is all fine. BUT... look at the titles of both OP and the research paper:
"Flying Snake Mysteries Revealed"
(There is no mystery. It was already known that the snake flattens its cross-section to an aerodynamic shape.)
"... how a bluff body cross-sectional shape contributes to gliding performance"
The (known) cross-section is an obvious airfoil-shape. We know basically "how" the cross-section leads to gliding performance. It may be that some actual fluid dynamics analysis has led to some better understanding of the details, but the title gives the impression that the basic aerodynamics were not already well understood.
The actual research may be new, but it is titled (and presented by OP) as though the BASICS weren't already known. The abstract does clarify it somewhat, but that doesn't change the fact that the title is misleading.
"In order to regulate credit card companies and banks, the CFPB needs to know what is happening with these financial products."
"Knowing what is happening with these... products" does not require monthly financial information on every adult in America.
Of course the official said asking for permission would make it impossible to get the data. Nobody in their right minds would give permission.
New generations are supposed to learn things from the older generations. That means picking up a book and watching National Geographic once in a while.
The fact that they didn't do their homework is not an excuse to call this "new research". It's re-inventing the wheel, which helps nobody.
I should add:
I even saw a video about it. And 10 years is a minimum figure... I really think it's closer to 20, but I don't remember for sure.
I quite literally see nothing new here. It's like the researchers did not even look at prior research before deciding to study this.
Exactly. This is a STUPID idea.
... with these "new" discoveries that really aren't.
I learned about how the snakes create an aerodynamic profile of their bodies over 10 years ago.
Nothing new here folks. Move along now.
"I think there is the free Word Viewer, and it existed even back in 2000.
Yes, but (A) you had to know it was available (many people did not), and (B) it had to be installed. Very few if any libraries, for example, had the Word reader installed. If you didn't have a computer, and only had access at the local library, you were SOL.
I am trying the F-Droid version, and indeed it seems to lack the restrictions of the Google Play version.
On the other hand, it doesn't find addresses worth a crap, and so far I haven't figured out how to make the voice announce U.S. units rather than km. I have it set to display U.S. units on the map, but the voice has kept giving me kilometers.
"PDF isn't proprietary... I'm not even sure it ever was (but it might have been)."
Yes, it is. While the specifications might be published, it belongs to Adobe and they reserve the right to change it any way they want, any time they want. (And they often have.)
"I meant to do that!"
Indeed. Yet another Google acquisition messed up, then tossed aside.
It might have made Google stronger, but that's not the way to make the economy stronger. It's far closer to corporate raiding than any kind of improvement to America.
"I disagree. A large part of the debate is about Snowden's conduct; whether it's right to share state secrets, given what the NSA is doing."
You honestly assert that this is a legitimate question?
You obviously don't live in the same America I was raised in.
"TV quackery has done so much damage to how people see "health" and medicine its almost fitting that this stuff starts to come about."
Even worse are TFAs about preliminary studies in genetically-altered mice that suggested relatively large doses of ONE antioxidant might assist cancer cells. ("Relatively large" because one of them was quoted as saying '10 times a normal diet'.")