The Web isn't just about Amazon, eBay, and Google. I've used flash to deliver internal IT applications that are never used by the public. It instantly solved my distribution problem of how to get the latest version out to 300 facilities spread over half the country, but without sacraficing the benefits of a thick client.
That is what RIA is good for, including Laszlo, and that is what I wish people would start talking about, instead of "flash...bleh" and "email, golly" and all this other 1990's garbage.
How many times do we need to reinvent the wheel, people?
The obvious answer is "until we get it right." I can only say that your love of Java as a solution to Rich Internet App development must come from never having to actually write and deploy a Java Swing app. (Hint: IT IS A NIGHTMARE.)
There is far more that can be said in this regard but suffice for now that there is compelling reason to NOT use Java as the "write-once run-anywhere" client it was promised to be.
Think a bit larger. The Web solves an age-old distribtion problem, but at the price of losing all that rich functionality you got used to with your favorite WIMP interface. Rich Internet Apps give you the full features of a thick client, with the benefits of the web.
However, our friend does point out a cosmic divide, between the traditional IT folks and their general disdain for anything "too webby." "Flash? FORGET THAT! I BLOCK IT!" And no wonder, he thinks its only used for cute calendar pop-ups. But RIA has the power to change the way IT is done forever, if only people stop thinking in their little boxes.
It was arrogant, but I thought, in a good way. They did a good job of calling useless companies, like Napster, on their BS. It wasn't mindless cheerleading, like The Industry Standard (whose website was still promising they'd deliver "what you need to succeed in this competitive world" AFTER they had gone bankrupt). Their arena was venture capital; I never found another magazine with that exclusive focus. They also did a good job of focusing on emerging markets, like the Middle East.
Now, their fulfillment department--that was arrogant. I had considered re-starting my subscription in their dying days, but then I received a letter one day saying something like, "I no longer have time to continue asking you to renew. Either do so or we'll remove you from our list." Let's hope this incarnation of Red Herring has a more, eh, mature management.
All arguments on a ham's "usefulness" aside, what's strange is I thought the libertarian slash-dotter mindset would embrace amateur radio as one of the last bastions of free, public media that isn't being bought up by Clear Channel or Comcast.
No, it cannot be used for broadcasting, but isn't it a good feeling that there's one piece of the spectrum dedicated to the overweight geek tinkering in his basement? Why on earth would you want to give that up, just so now your regional power company can get into bed with AOL, too?
If you hate my point of view so much, why do you keep writing back? Is it that you can't stand to let me have the last word?
Why do I hate your point of view so much? Because I found it opressive. I felt you refused to consider there was another side to this story, and encouraged others to take civic action based on that one-sidedness. I just wanted to do my part to promote that "other" side of the story.
Is it that you can't stand to let me have the last word?
I have never had any doubt you'll have the last word.
No, you weren't, that's true. You just got on here and said, bascially, "this research is crap, and I want it stopped, so write here now and tell them to stop wasting my money!"
Never mind, it's a losing cause. I feel like I'm back in high school arguing with some crabby girl again who takes everything I say and twists it around. (Hey, are you a high-school girl? That would explain a lot:)
Once again, proving my point, that you allowed your moral objections to interfere with the notion that there is any possible benefit from the research.
The real stock market, by the way, makes plenty of money from death and destruction. Hope you don't have a 401(k) or anything.
How about I just start shouting about stell cell research, and how wrong it is, to descerate unborn babies, or whatever? I'll just ignore any possible benefits it might have and just keep shouting, OK? We'll see how long you keep listening.
And I'm the close-minded black-and-whiter with a security blanket. You still haven't read the background artcile, I'm sure.
Do you really mean that there can never be a valid moral objection to any kind of research?
And, uh, who determines what is stupid, and what is foolish? Was the "security blanket" I used a bad example of a group who clung to an ignorant morality out of fear, using that fear to suppress valid scientific research?
The original poster, who still hasn't really given any valid scientific reasons why this research is bad, has ranted in fervent tones about how immoral this is, without conceding there might be some validity to the research. Even if research is morally objectionable by most standards, shouldn't it at least be considered for its benefits?
Unreal. And I'm the one seeing things in "black and white." I just want ideas to have their day in the sun and not be shouted down by the hoi polloi for being "too weird."
This model was never meant to infer human behavior.
No? Then why would DARPA be interested? I guess you have a pretty low opinion of them. It makes no sense at all unless they were interested in the predictive qualities of futures trading. Their mandate is not to create another currency market, it's to fund defense research.
I'm glad they cancelled this research before they wasted anymore time or money.
No matter, others will peruse it, and some of that will invariably use tax dollars, just not as directly.
I don't know, I don't think the point was for people to make money from it. The point was to test whether the supposed efficiencies of equities and futures markets can be harnessed to help make predictions on possible terrorist activity.
Sure, information is classified. So are earnings numbers from public corporations--but still, there is a consensus that is built by both professionals and casual investors, that is often correct--or close to it.
It seemed it was an idea worth perusing. I don't agree that it was a bad idea "from the beginning." You don't sound like you've really allowed yourself to think through the other side of the argument. Did you read the backgrounder article? After reading that, can you still categorically say that this is just bad, bad, bad, with no possible redeeming value?
As for me seeing things black-and-white: you have to admit your posts had a fervent religious pitch to them, and you through in a lot of irrelevant nonsense, about how the $600K should be use to fund . I would like to think that slashdotters can argue the merits of a case, rather than just get into a high pitch screech that sounds more like reactionary close-mindedness.
You've never really answered the question why you are so convinced this is a waste of money, bad science, and useless. Sorry, but so far all I've seen is someone reacting to some kind of moral reversion, and as I said before in my comment about Galileo and the Catholic Church, that's not really a valid reason for not conducting plausible research.
I hate to be rude, but do you know anything about DARPA? Among its many "wastes of money" is the one you're using right now, the Internet.
Or are you just one of those folks who will always find a better use of taxpayer's money than research? It's a valid point, I suppose, esp. for free-market capitalist libertarians that don't like government funded anything. But that doesn't seem to be your argument.
BTW, as for Afghanistan, which you keep mentioning, I believe the White House is about to ask for another $1B in funding to help stabalize the country. Gee, that $600K would have REALLY made a big dent if $1B is needed just to get thru the next year.
I thought the futures market was to invest in *good* things, not bad things.
This is kind of a common misconception. People make money when markets go up AND down. Buying puts, selling calls, shorting a stock--all our bets that stocks (or currencies, or commodities, or whatever) are going DOWN.
The markets consider this very useful and a valid trading strategy, because it often is a sign of weakness ahead. Of course, sometimes the pessimists are wrong. (Then again, so are the people that bet that only good things will happen.)
Point is, there is plenty of money to be made from bad things happening.
As for it being gambling, one could argue (as the one essay linked in the article did) that ALL speculation is a form of gambling, and was once considered as such legally, until opinions changed.
There is no way the government is going to find ANY valuable information this method.
And you've shown this to be true using what scientific method?
As for writing my congressman, thanks for the suggestion. I think I'll write my Senators and encourage them to continute to fund creative research.
Because that's what DARPA IS--RESEARCH. This is not a fully-functional system ready to capture terrorists or make people wealthy from other's misfortunes. It's a friggin' research project. It may succeed, it may fail, it may need refining--we don't know unless we try. That's the nature of science.
I thought slashdotters were supposed to be open-minded futurists "fighting ignorance." Instead so many posters here are coming off as moralist Luddites. (Or Democratic senators.)
I'll bet pretty heavily that I will not be killed during the next few years. Of course, since I'm a nobody, I'll have to give some pretty long odds.
As long as I live, I'll get some small return on my investment.
What a creative idea. What should we call this? Uh, um, how about life insurance?
Why buy airline options *before* 9/11? The share prices for airlines fell after 9/11 if I am not mistaken which means that the price of options would have fallen after that date. Anyone buying airling options before 9/11 would have lost money after the event.
I think the original poster said they were put options. Buying a put is making a bet that a stock will go down. When you exercise your put, you are able to sell your stock at the option's strike price--something you would only do if the strike was higher than the current market price. Alternately, you could sell your options, since they invariably went up in price.
I seem to remember reading that there was also an unusually high short position taken in those two airlines by a small number of traders, just before the attacks. I don't know what ever became of that investigation.
This is slightly OT, but as a DC-area resident, losing a person of this stature is just another sign that NoVA's glory days are drawing to a close. For the past two years it's been nothing but that old standby defense (with its new handle, "homeland security") doing the hiring (if you have the clearances), with Internet, eCommerce, and telcos doing their well-publicized death dance.
Couple this with 9/11, anthrax, the Beltway sniper, and a few uncharacteristic deadly tornados, and this place has turned into an incredibly uptight and unhappy place.
Not that California is quite what it was, either, but for a season there, DC was the "Silicon Swamp," and it was intoxicating.
Slashdot Mirror
That is what RIA is good for, including Laszlo, and that is what I wish people would start talking about, instead of "flash...bleh" and "email, golly" and all this other 1990's garbage.
There is far more that can be said in this regard but suffice for now that there is compelling reason to NOT use Java as the "write-once run-anywhere" client it was promised to be.
Think a bit larger. The Web solves an age-old distribtion problem, but at the price of losing all that rich functionality you got used to with your favorite WIMP interface. Rich Internet Apps give you the full features of a thick client, with the benefits of the web.
However, our friend does point out a cosmic divide, between the traditional IT folks and their general disdain for anything "too webby." "Flash? FORGET THAT! I BLOCK IT!" And no wonder, he thinks its only used for cute calendar pop-ups. But RIA has the power to change the way IT is done forever, if only people stop thinking in their little boxes.
Flash. It's not just for Skip Intro anymore.
Now, their fulfillment department--that was arrogant. I had considered re-starting my subscription in their dying days, but then I received a letter one day saying something like, "I no longer have time to continue asking you to renew. Either do so or we'll remove you from our list." Let's hope this incarnation of Red Herring has a more, eh, mature management.
No, it cannot be used for broadcasting, but isn't it a good feeling that there's one piece of the spectrum dedicated to the overweight geek tinkering in his basement? Why on earth would you want to give that up, just so now your regional power company can get into bed with AOL, too?
Why do I hate your point of view so much? Because I found it opressive. I felt you refused to consider there was another side to this story, and encouraged others to take civic action based on that one-sidedness. I just wanted to do my part to promote that "other" side of the story.
I have never had any doubt you'll have the last word.
Never mind, it's a losing cause. I feel like I'm back in high school arguing with some crabby girl again who takes everything I say and twists it around. (Hey, are you a high-school girl? That would explain a lot :)
The real stock market, by the way, makes plenty of money from death and destruction. Hope you don't have a 401(k) or anything.
How about I just start shouting about stell cell research, and how wrong it is, to descerate unborn babies, or whatever? I'll just ignore any possible benefits it might have and just keep shouting, OK? We'll see how long you keep listening.
And I'm the close-minded black-and-whiter with a security blanket. You still haven't read the background artcile, I'm sure.
And, uh, who determines what is stupid, and what is foolish? Was the "security blanket" I used a bad example of a group who clung to an ignorant morality out of fear, using that fear to suppress valid scientific research?
The original poster, who still hasn't really given any valid scientific reasons why this research is bad, has ranted in fervent tones about how immoral this is, without conceding there might be some validity to the research. Even if research is morally objectionable by most standards, shouldn't it at least be considered for its benefits?
Unreal. And I'm the one seeing things in "black and white." I just want ideas to have their day in the sun and not be shouted down by the hoi polloi for being "too weird."
No? Then why would DARPA be interested? I guess you have a pretty low opinion of them. It makes no sense at all unless they were interested in the predictive qualities of futures trading. Their mandate is not to create another currency market, it's to fund defense research.
No matter, others will peruse it, and some of that will invariably use tax dollars, just not as directly.
Sure, information is classified. So are earnings numbers from public corporations--but still, there is a consensus that is built by both professionals and casual investors, that is often correct--or close to it.
It seemed it was an idea worth perusing. I don't agree that it was a bad idea "from the beginning." You don't sound like you've really allowed yourself to think through the other side of the argument. Did you read the backgrounder article? After reading that, can you still categorically say that this is just bad, bad, bad, with no possible redeeming value?
As for me seeing things black-and-white: you have to admit your posts had a fervent religious pitch to them, and you through in a lot of irrelevant nonsense, about how the $600K should be use to fund . I would like to think that slashdotters can argue the merits of a case, rather than just get into a high pitch screech that sounds more like reactionary close-mindedness.
You've never really answered the question why you are so convinced this is a waste of money, bad science, and useless. Sorry, but so far all I've seen is someone reacting to some kind of moral reversion, and as I said before in my comment about Galileo and the Catholic Church, that's not really a valid reason for not conducting plausible research.
Or are you just one of those folks who will always find a better use of taxpayer's money than research? It's a valid point, I suppose, esp. for free-market capitalist libertarians that don't like government funded anything. But that doesn't seem to be your argument.
BTW, as for Afghanistan, which you keep mentioning, I believe the White House is about to ask for another $1B in funding to help stabalize the country. Gee, that $600K would have REALLY made a big dent if $1B is needed just to get thru the next year.
This is kind of a common misconception. People make money when markets go up AND down. Buying puts, selling calls, shorting a stock--all our bets that stocks (or currencies, or commodities, or whatever) are going DOWN.
The markets consider this very useful and a valid trading strategy, because it often is a sign of weakness ahead. Of course, sometimes the pessimists are wrong. (Then again, so are the people that bet that only good things will happen.)
Point is, there is plenty of money to be made from bad things happening.
As for it being gambling, one could argue (as the one essay linked in the article did) that ALL speculation is a form of gambling, and was once considered as such legally, until opinions changed.
Again, why do you assume it is a waste of money? Again, where is your proof that this method is no better than a psychic?
And they are....? You have a better research idea that deserves the funding more? Then let's hear it.
The Catholic Church had a moral objection to Galileo's research. I guess you're telling me they were really open-minded, too.
And you've shown this to be true using what scientific method?
As for writing my congressman, thanks for the suggestion. I think I'll write my Senators and encourage them to continute to fund creative research.
Because that's what DARPA IS--RESEARCH. This is not a fully-functional system ready to capture terrorists or make people wealthy from other's misfortunes. It's a friggin' research project. It may succeed, it may fail, it may need refining--we don't know unless we try. That's the nature of science.
I thought slashdotters were supposed to be open-minded futurists "fighting ignorance." Instead so many posters here are coming off as moralist Luddites. (Or Democratic senators.)
I seem to remember reading that there was also an unusually high short position taken in those two airlines by a small number of traders, just before the attacks. I don't know what ever became of that investigation.
Couple this with 9/11, anthrax, the Beltway sniper, and a few uncharacteristic deadly tornados, and this place has turned into an incredibly uptight and unhappy place.
Not that California is quite what it was, either, but for a season there, DC was the "Silicon Swamp," and it was intoxicating.