Already a jumble of variant support. WebForms 2, XHTML 2, canvas. Different browsers supporting different subsets of features: IE, Opera, Firefox, Safari, Konqueror.
I agree this looks like a great extension to HTML. But these standards groups need to get agreement and cooperation out of the browser development groups and releases. I guess I wouldn't mind Firefox and Opera leading the edge, since they seem to have better rate of development (well, MS could beat them with sheer resources, but the play-nice strategy tax still comes into play here).
Christ, at minimum, will they please have alterate form submission destinations without JS in the buttons? Even WML and HDML for phone microbrowsers had this in 2001.
I think a large set of feature extensions to HTML would be fine, as long as some sort of idea of a rollout schedule can be estimated from the major browsers. I'm a corporate developer, so I can generally rely on only one or two browsers being used. But consumer sites will be in deeper pits of version hell.
Of course they don't get developed by the universities. Just like you said, the drug companies pick and choose the drugs and then "bring them to market". So the researchers do proof of concept of the drug's compound and mechanism, and then the companies nab it from the research institution. I'm not going to say that 100% of drugs are like this (I'm sure the drug companies are feverishly searching on their own for dozens of impotency and baldness drug variants), but the drug companies see practically all the profit off of what is essentially public research. Sure they assume some risk, but seeing as how drug companies are the single most profitable sector in the entire economy, I don't think this is charitable.
And now I'll address your out-of-nowhere tangent. I won't say that drug companies aren't in business to make money. But they also cloak themselves in self-congratulations, all while doing kickback-system sales channels, generic drug suppression, misleading advertising, and devastating capitol-hill lobbying that is all antithetical to competition, commodification of drugs, and inevitably, the health of people.
That's funny, I just had lunch not a week ago with a friend that works for a drug company. She said exactly what I just said.
Now I might not have backed up my claims, but of course, you being the insider, pointed to lots of glaring examples to refute me...right...
50-80% of your costs are advertising, and rarely do any of the largest drug companies exceed 15% of spending in research.
My roommate was a med student and told me about your drug company salesmen. More kickbacks please! Free golf trip tropical "conferences". Free dinner at a steak house every other night!
Anonymous coward chimes in from the ivory tower. I've taken micro and macro. Still read the textbooks every once and a while.
Pigovian taxes and subsidies: like the oil subsidies we provide, like the fact we can't levy imports because the manufacturing countries have zero regulations, zero health care, zero "Pigovian" anything? Yeah, working really great guys.
Where are your supposed economic practitioners? All I ever read in the _ECONOMIST_, or on Meet the press, or in the NYT, or anywhere in the popular press, is economists falling over themselves whacking off over globalism, about as destructive a force both to humans in general and the environment as any invented. Where are you externalities? Where are your pigovian taxes? I present basic questions such as economic value of an extinct species or economic value of a kid that is being worked 15 hours a day in a factory to economists, and they always avoid giving the heartless, frightening answers. What's the value of a national park? Depends on the tourist revenue. What's the value of an entire forest being destroyed due to global warming allowing tree disease to migrate north? Answer: how much were the logs worth.
You think you can toss out "externalities" and "Pigovian" and I'll go running for the hills? You're not nearly as smart as you think you are.
Why the hell is this flamebait? I disagree with him heartily, but it ain't flamebait. This response is better measured than any of the predecssor replies. Weird
Cost theory aside (I do understand supply/demand curves, elasticity, utility, and other microeconomic models), your point just further illustrates how economics increasingly separates itself from real-world factors (how much does a human life "cost"? That's always a hilarious question to ask an economist). If something pollutes the enviroment so a kid is deformed, what's the economic cost? Cue some economist in glasses mumbling about his projected average salary for his projected economic strata times life expectancy. Are you fucking kidding? How's this? What's the economic damage of extinction of elephants? I'll tell you: if elephants aren't around eating tons of grass, humans could exploit their territory, so the economic benefit is positive.
If basic conclusions of economics like that are instantaneously wrong from any degree of humanist perspective, I've got news for you: YOUR "SCIENCE" IS FLAWED. Please try again.
"My only comment to this is that environmentalists frequently fail to account for the economic impact of their recommendations. Which do you think is worse: the death of 50% of the population due to lack of economic resources or the death of 50% of the population due to destruction of the environment?"
See my above point about economists accounting for the value of human life. And it shows that economics is fundamentally subjective. If economists (say, from the U of Chicago), could give two rat farts if the serengeti is paved over to make a big Six Flags amusement park, then the subjective cost of destroying the environment is zero. Again, how does economics value beauty? By it's Sothebys Auction value? Hilarious.
At this point, you should know what I think of pricing. Pricing is artificial, ignorant, and thinks short term. Pricing addresses disasters only after they've occured, not before. That's what regulation and policy are for, to add intelligence to ignorant, stupid economics.
"ABSOLUTELY FALSE" but you're too chicken to do anything but nyah-nyah. Oh, I'm sure modern pricing also has fluff such as advertising, elasticity, and the supply/demand dynamics. But in the long long term, as in environmental degradation over decades, that stuff doesn't matter. That stuff is microeconomic, short- and medium- term price fluctuation. Karl Marx. You Idiot.
A great deal of economics is devoted to it, which is why gas was once cheaper than filtered water, which is why zero effort is being placed into incentivizing mass transit, reducing sprawl, car use, which is why rather than manufacture locally, oil is subsidized to allow goods to be manufactured overseas, then shipped pointlessly several thousand miles. In the case of "lower overseas costs", how is it that not a single economist gets on TV and explains that shitty kewpie dolls manufactured in malaysia are cheaper because of:
A) no regulation on manufacturing pollution
B) no health care for workers
C) hell, no workplace safety regulation
D) no regulation of dumping trash and poison into the oceans and freshwater streams
E) no pollution controls on power generation
F) no emission controls on combustion engines for cars, trucks, power
Enough? just the tip of the iceberg
"As if governments look out for the best interests of the common people. Look at the environmental conditions of the Soviet bloc during the cold war." -- thank you for revealing yourself as a moronic libertarian, enjoy your Bush tax cuts, economic genius.
Finance isn't economics? The guy ran cost-benefit analysis of a good to determine its value? Have you taken microeconomics? Regardless of your pedantism, regardless of a micro or macro-level discussion, it highlights economic problems.
The rest of your statement is completely false. Remember when gas was cheaper than filtered water in the late 90s? I didn't see any economic policy addressing global warming, increasingly worsening air quality, sprawl and urban/suburban transport issues in the cost and economic policies then. Still don't, instead, oil is subsidized, AND HOW with the recent energy bill, rollback of environmental and emissions protections, and god knows what else in the ultra double-secret office of the Vice President.
"Poor analysis isn't the fault of economics, it is the fault of the economist."
If a vast majority of economists fail at this, then that is what economics can and can't do. It's flawed. Thanks for "agreeing"
I wouldn't do it unless there was an explicit royalty agreement that any drugs made from a "cure" in my blood would give me 20% of profits.
Drug companies are the real pieces of shit. 50-80% of the budgets are marketing, most of the development costs are assumed by public-sector universities.
Papers like these are crowning examples of why economics is not just imperfect, but a fundamentally flawed "science". Cost and pricing, according to economic theory, are supposed to represent actual real-world values of labor and resources consumed to produce something. The fact that economics cannot properly account, even remotely, the degradation of the environment and account for how this will impact us in ten to 100 years means that its recommendations should be taken within a strictly constrainted box.
However, economics has become the modern religion of politics, with its "experts" word taken as golden writ, despite the path of ruination it leads us to. The world continues to ramp up nonsustainable consumption of all resources, especially as China, India, and other countries modernize. The only route to redefining the costs and economic behaviors is government regulation, which is now so passe and under steady assault, both explicitly through increased conservatism, and practically by offshoring all manufacturing in unregulated countries.
Of course Slashdot happily plops shit like this paper on slashdot as the holy scree of the economists, as if that is the end all be all. W00t! Hybrid owners p0wn'd, we're l33t kewl.
Oh god, I just yesterday wasted 10 minutes waiting for JVm 1.5 to initialize some applet. Still. in 2005.
I'm a frickin professional java programmer, and desktop java still exasperates me.
Plus you can have up to four JVMs running at once if you are running eclipse, a webserver, a browser that is running applets, and some enterprise software's AET configuration utility. Christ.
Java on the server, like linux on the server, is a home run. Java on the desktop, like linux on the desktop, is like fusion power, always another ten years away.
Free ride off the JVM. That's hilarious.
Keep in mind I don't disagree that the stack of processing that goes on in a web browser is much better:
- call webserver
- webserver does god knows what to generate page/XML
- return page+date to browser
- parse page
- interpret Javascript
- render to OS's gui toolkit
But it's still better, faster, easier than Java+AWT/Swing.
These are (according to Wiki) microkernels. Haven't ran either of them, and as I understand at the time, neither of them "sucked", they may have lacked a sufficient community to engender commercial success.
I've never heard of BeOS as "sucking", just that it didn't have software. And from an OS "feel", it was powerful, responsive, and efficient, and implemented some relatively revolutionary features for an OS
AmigaOS was, for its time, quite advanced. Eventually the behemoth Microsoft compensated, but if these two OSes hardly seemed flawed from a fundamental OS design, more brutal economic realities.
Truly a jack of all trades, master of none problem
The iPod is a focused device that does its original intent quite well. PDAs never did any of their information tasks very well, and considering a mini-laptop was far more useful and almost as portable, PDAs beyond address books (which a watch or phone does better now) never justified their 300-500 dollar price point.
I worked at a startup that chased enterprise apps on PDAs in the early 00s.
Developer tools sucked/expensive/closed, and the APIs changed constantly. MS does this junk on the desktop all the time with technologies, as in OLE->COM->DCOM->whatever, but can hide backwards compatibility in the OS bloat, but PDAs don't have room for backwards bloat. So no vibrant utilities or third-party apps really flourished. Palm wasn't much better, either.
I mean, try making an enterprise app for all the diffrent flavors of Palm+PocketPC. Jesus, it's like writing a 3D driving game for the NES, SNES, and Playstation2 all at once. Too expensive, and not enough money to be made.
Heck, processor architectures and fundamental OS capabilities (single-thread vs preemptive multitasking) changed constantly.
Battery life was always terrible, and if you ran out of battery, POOF! goes your installed apps and data (on the iPaq at least).
Finally, when I had to pay $150 for a damn PCMCIA sleeve for an iPaq that cost only $250, man, that is just WRONG. Any interesting thing you could do with it, from early WiFi or heck even wired networking went out the window with that.
So basically, the PDA market fragmented into dozens of minimarkets, where nothing could flourish. This was okay in the nascent PC market back in 1980 and you could release a computer with just BASIC interpreter and an extremely rudimentary OS, but people have far different expectations of applications (actual user interfaces, connectivity to internet, etc).
"I'm not sure what other large-scale features you're referring to, but don't you think that a centralized Java application server is far more of a bottleneck than the shared-nothing architecture that PHP uses?"
You knowledge of PHP libraries aside, that statement betrays your architectural ignorance.
PHP is a dynamic page generation platform that accesses a database. The bottlenecks aren't magically solved by PHP koolaid. With a strong preference for a sub-enterprise database that won't easily scale. You totally don't know what you're talking about
As for the libraries, are all those libraries cross-platform? Ah nevermind, cross-platform is for "niche" technologies, "niche" platforms, and "niche" web sites.
You obviously do nothing but Windows.
Java "extensions" are just java, and have the same near-guarantee of running seamlessly on any platform. Especially if you're talking server code.
Slashdot Mirror
Please, that is 4x funnier than practically every Score5 funny on active stories right now. At least your joke makes a point.
Already a jumble of variant support. WebForms 2, XHTML 2, canvas. Different browsers supporting different subsets of features: IE, Opera, Firefox, Safari, Konqueror.
I agree this looks like a great extension to HTML. But these standards groups need to get agreement and cooperation out of the browser development groups and releases. I guess I wouldn't mind Firefox and Opera leading the edge, since they seem to have better rate of development (well, MS could beat them with sheer resources, but the play-nice strategy tax still comes into play here).
Christ, at minimum, will they please have alterate form submission destinations without JS in the buttons? Even WML and HDML for phone microbrowsers had this in 2001.
I think a large set of feature extensions to HTML would be fine, as long as some sort of idea of a rollout schedule can be estimated from the major browsers. I'm a corporate developer, so I can generally rely on only one or two browsers being used. But consumer sites will be in deeper pits of version hell.
Yeah, that's "Funny"
Of course they don't get developed by the universities. Just like you said, the drug companies pick and choose the drugs and then "bring them to market". So the researchers do proof of concept of the drug's compound and mechanism, and then the companies nab it from the research institution. I'm not going to say that 100% of drugs are like this (I'm sure the drug companies are feverishly searching on their own for dozens of impotency and baldness drug variants), but the drug companies see practically all the profit off of what is essentially public research. Sure they assume some risk, but seeing as how drug companies are the single most profitable sector in the entire economy, I don't think this is charitable.
And now I'll address your out-of-nowhere tangent. I won't say that drug companies aren't in business to make money. But they also cloak themselves in self-congratulations, all while doing kickback-system sales channels, generic drug suppression, misleading advertising, and devastating capitol-hill lobbying that is all antithetical to competition, commodification of drugs, and inevitably, the health of people.
That's funny, I just had lunch not a week ago with a friend that works for a drug company. She said exactly what I just said.
Now I might not have backed up my claims, but of course, you being the insider, pointed to lots of glaring examples to refute me...right...
50-80% of your costs are advertising, and rarely do any of the largest drug companies exceed 15% of spending in research.
My roommate was a med student and told me about your drug company salesmen. More kickbacks please! Free golf trip tropical "conferences". Free dinner at a steak house every other night!
Well, if it costs 200 million, then you spend a billion in advertising, and do BS accounting...
Anonymous coward chimes in from the ivory tower. I've taken micro and macro. Still read the textbooks every once and a while.
Pigovian taxes and subsidies: like the oil subsidies we provide, like the fact we can't levy imports because the manufacturing countries have zero regulations, zero health care, zero "Pigovian" anything? Yeah, working really great guys.
Where are your supposed economic practitioners? All I ever read in the _ECONOMIST_, or on Meet the press, or in the NYT, or anywhere in the popular press, is economists falling over themselves whacking off over globalism, about as destructive a force both to humans in general and the environment as any invented. Where are you externalities? Where are your pigovian taxes? I present basic questions such as economic value of an extinct species or economic value of a kid that is being worked 15 hours a day in a factory to economists, and they always avoid giving the heartless, frightening answers. What's the value of a national park? Depends on the tourist revenue. What's the value of an entire forest being destroyed due to global warming allowing tree disease to migrate north? Answer: how much were the logs worth.
You think you can toss out "externalities" and "Pigovian" and I'll go running for the hills? You're not nearly as smart as you think you are.
Why the hell is this flamebait? I disagree with him heartily, but it ain't flamebait. This response is better measured than any of the predecssor replies. Weird
Cost theory aside (I do understand supply/demand curves, elasticity, utility, and other microeconomic models), your point just further illustrates how economics increasingly separates itself from real-world factors (how much does a human life "cost"? That's always a hilarious question to ask an economist). If something pollutes the enviroment so a kid is deformed, what's the economic cost? Cue some economist in glasses mumbling about his projected average salary for his projected economic strata times life expectancy. Are you fucking kidding? How's this? What's the economic damage of extinction of elephants? I'll tell you: if elephants aren't around eating tons of grass, humans could exploit their territory, so the economic benefit is positive.
If basic conclusions of economics like that are instantaneously wrong from any degree of humanist perspective, I've got news for you: YOUR "SCIENCE" IS FLAWED. Please try again.
"My only comment to this is that environmentalists frequently fail to account for the economic impact of their recommendations. Which do you think is worse: the death of 50% of the population due to lack of economic resources or the death of 50% of the population due to destruction of the environment?"
See my above point about economists accounting for the value of human life. And it shows that economics is fundamentally subjective. If economists (say, from the U of Chicago), could give two rat farts if the serengeti is paved over to make a big Six Flags amusement park, then the subjective cost of destroying the environment is zero. Again, how does economics value beauty? By it's Sothebys Auction value? Hilarious.
At this point, you should know what I think of pricing. Pricing is artificial, ignorant, and thinks short term. Pricing addresses disasters only after they've occured, not before. That's what regulation and policy are for, to add intelligence to ignorant, stupid economics.
"ABSOLUTELY FALSE" but you're too chicken to do anything but nyah-nyah. Oh, I'm sure modern pricing also has fluff such as advertising, elasticity, and the supply/demand dynamics. But in the long long term, as in environmental degradation over decades, that stuff doesn't matter. That stuff is microeconomic, short- and medium- term price fluctuation. Karl Marx. You Idiot.
A great deal of economics is devoted to it, which is why gas was once cheaper than filtered water, which is why zero effort is being placed into incentivizing mass transit, reducing sprawl, car use, which is why rather than manufacture locally, oil is subsidized to allow goods to be manufactured overseas, then shipped pointlessly several thousand miles. In the case of "lower overseas costs", how is it that not a single economist gets on TV and explains that shitty kewpie dolls manufactured in malaysia are cheaper because of:
A) no regulation on manufacturing pollution
B) no health care for workers
C) hell, no workplace safety regulation
D) no regulation of dumping trash and poison into the oceans and freshwater streams
E) no pollution controls on power generation
F) no emission controls on combustion engines for cars, trucks, power
Enough? just the tip of the iceberg
"As if governments look out for the best interests of the common people. Look at the environmental conditions of the Soviet bloc during the cold war." -- thank you for revealing yourself as a moronic libertarian, enjoy your Bush tax cuts, economic genius.
Finance isn't economics? The guy ran cost-benefit analysis of a good to determine its value? Have you taken microeconomics? Regardless of your pedantism, regardless of a micro or macro-level discussion, it highlights economic problems.
The rest of your statement is completely false. Remember when gas was cheaper than filtered water in the late 90s? I didn't see any economic policy addressing global warming, increasingly worsening air quality, sprawl and urban/suburban transport issues in the cost and economic policies then. Still don't, instead, oil is subsidized, AND HOW with the recent energy bill, rollback of environmental and emissions protections, and god knows what else in the ultra double-secret office of the Vice President.
"Poor analysis isn't the fault of economics, it is the fault of the economist."
If a vast majority of economists fail at this, then that is what economics can and can't do. It's flawed. Thanks for "agreeing"
I wouldn't do it unless there was an explicit royalty agreement that any drugs made from a "cure" in my blood would give me 20% of profits.
Drug companies are the real pieces of shit. 50-80% of the budgets are marketing, most of the development costs are assumed by public-sector universities.
Papers like these are crowning examples of why economics is not just imperfect, but a fundamentally flawed "science". Cost and pricing, according to economic theory, are supposed to represent actual real-world values of labor and resources consumed to produce something. The fact that economics cannot properly account, even remotely, the degradation of the environment and account for how this will impact us in ten to 100 years means that its recommendations should be taken within a strictly constrainted box.
However, economics has become the modern religion of politics, with its "experts" word taken as golden writ, despite the path of ruination it leads us to. The world continues to ramp up nonsustainable consumption of all resources, especially as China, India, and other countries modernize. The only route to redefining the costs and economic behaviors is government regulation, which is now so passe and under steady assault, both explicitly through increased conservatism, and practically by offshoring all manufacturing in unregulated countries.
Of course Slashdot happily plops shit like this paper on slashdot as the holy scree of the economists, as if that is the end all be all. W00t! Hybrid owners p0wn'd, we're l33t kewl.
please.
Oh god, I just yesterday wasted 10 minutes waiting for JVm 1.5 to initialize some applet. Still. in 2005.
I'm a frickin professional java programmer, and desktop java still exasperates me.
Plus you can have up to four JVMs running at once if you are running eclipse, a webserver, a browser that is running applets, and some enterprise software's AET configuration utility. Christ. Java on the server, like linux on the server, is a home run. Java on the desktop, like linux on the desktop, is like fusion power, always another ten years away.
Free ride off the JVM. That's hilarious.
Keep in mind I don't disagree that the stack of processing that goes on in a web browser is much better:
- call webserver
- webserver does god knows what to generate page/XML
- return page+date to browser
- parse page
- interpret Javascript
- render to OS's gui toolkit
But it's still better, faster, easier than Java+AWT/Swing.
would be a more appropos title then?
It seems pretty clear you're writing server-only code. Server/command line code is trivial to make portable compared to GUI applications.
It's a little immature, but groovy will provide you java cross-scripting with more script-like capabilities and syntactic sugar.
just like:
Texas = Fraud
Telecom = Fraud
Why do you think the bushies control these states? They're corrupt as hell, but unlike the rest of the corrupt south, these two states have money.
Don't get me started on Telecom.
Ever heard of it people? Probably not. Sigh.
SSL the IP connection, then they're screwed.
How much power loss is due to ludicrous numbers of layers of processing that go on in modern OSes and applications?
Time for the OS vendors to realize that smaller, efficient code footprints will save money in real world terms.
Then again, I code in java for a living (Ducks)
These are (according to Wiki) microkernels. Haven't ran either of them, and as I understand at the time, neither of them "sucked", they may have lacked a sufficient community to engender commercial success.
I've never heard of BeOS as "sucking", just that it didn't have software. And from an OS "feel", it was powerful, responsive, and efficient, and implemented some relatively revolutionary features for an OS
AmigaOS was, for its time, quite advanced. Eventually the behemoth Microsoft compensated, but if these two OSes hardly seemed flawed from a fundamental OS design, more brutal economic realities.
Truly a jack of all trades, master of none problem
The iPod is a focused device that does its original intent quite well. PDAs never did any of their information tasks very well, and considering a mini-laptop was far more useful and almost as portable, PDAs beyond address books (which a watch or phone does better now) never justified their 300-500 dollar price point.
I worked at a startup that chased enterprise apps on PDAs in the early 00s.
Developer tools sucked/expensive/closed, and the APIs changed constantly. MS does this junk on the desktop all the time with technologies, as in OLE->COM->DCOM->whatever, but can hide backwards compatibility in the OS bloat, but PDAs don't have room for backwards bloat. So no vibrant utilities or third-party apps really flourished. Palm wasn't much better, either.
I mean, try making an enterprise app for all the diffrent flavors of Palm+PocketPC. Jesus, it's like writing a 3D driving game for the NES, SNES, and Playstation2 all at once. Too expensive, and not enough money to be made.
Heck, processor architectures and fundamental OS capabilities (single-thread vs preemptive multitasking) changed constantly.
Battery life was always terrible, and if you ran out of battery, POOF! goes your installed apps and data (on the iPaq at least).
Finally, when I had to pay $150 for a damn PCMCIA sleeve for an iPaq that cost only $250, man, that is just WRONG. Any interesting thing you could do with it, from early WiFi or heck even wired networking went out the window with that.
So basically, the PDA market fragmented into dozens of minimarkets, where nothing could flourish. This was okay in the nascent PC market back in 1980 and you could release a computer with just BASIC interpreter and an extremely rudimentary OS, but people have far different expectations of applications (actual user interfaces, connectivity to internet, etc).
"I'm not sure what other large-scale features you're referring to, but don't you think that a centralized Java application server is far more of a bottleneck than the shared-nothing architecture that PHP uses?"
You knowledge of PHP libraries aside, that statement betrays your architectural ignorance.
PHP is a dynamic page generation platform that accesses a database. The bottlenecks aren't magically solved by PHP koolaid. With a strong preference for a sub-enterprise database that won't easily scale. You totally don't know what you're talking about
As for the libraries, are all those libraries cross-platform? Ah nevermind, cross-platform is for "niche" technologies, "niche" platforms, and "niche" web sites.
You obviously do nothing but Windows. Java "extensions" are just java, and have the same near-guarantee of running seamlessly on any platform. Especially if you're talking server code.
Cheaper than 4GB of flash, faster. No need for a swap file if you have 4 fricking gigs.