Oh yeah, you can run Class Viewer as an applet. For a while I did have it up at my SourceForge site as an applet but I wasn't sure that was ok, and didn't want it to turn into some kind of reference site.
But anyone can just throw it on a webpage, maybe with their own code's javadocs bundled up in the jar file so that they can access their class information from the web.
Class Viewer is a hybrid app--it runs on the desktop or on the web, with less functionality from the web.
I think hybrid apps are the future of app development.
Friday, November 27, 2009
Saturday, August 22, 2009
Handling low light, two camera review from Pogue
Link above goes to: The New York Times
Quote from the Source:
An interesting review from David Pogue, which has good information about sensors. I'm putting this up partly as a reference for myself later for when I might pick up a camera good in low light as I have been frustrated trying to take nighttime city-scape shots of San Francisco.
Quote from the Source:
STATE OF THE ART
Low Light Becomes a Highlight
By DAVID POGUE
Published: August 20, 2009
New cameras from Sony and Fujifilm come with redesigned sensors that mark an important step forward in personal photography.
An interesting review from David Pogue, which has good information about sensors. I'm putting this up partly as a reference for myself later for when I might pick up a camera good in low light as I have been frustrated trying to take nighttime city-scape shots of San Francisco.
Sunday, July 05, 2009
Fun Twitter game for bright people: perfect tweets
Because Twitter has the rule of 140 characters or less for a tweet an obvious and fun game is to produce perfect tweets, defined to be 140 characters exactly, but that's not enough as here is a perfect Tweet that I tweeted earlier today to my Twitter:
In my opinion, crucial criteria for a perfect tweet is that it be EXACTLY 140 characters, have few if any abbreviations, and is grammatical.
That tweet is 140 characters exactly and is (um, I'm fairly certain), grammatical.
Ok, updating as I got in an argument over this subject, so have a variant to handle both cases in case it turns into some kind of major thing:
In my opinion crucial criteria for a perfect tweet are that it be EXACTLY 140 characters, have few if any abbreviations, and is grammatical.
And later I found another...
The perfect tweet must have the following conditions: it must be 140 characters, be grammatically correct and have few if any abbreviations.
I'm curious, how many tweets on Twitter on any given day are perfect by those rules?
Here's one more perfect tweet:
My wild guess unsupported by inside information is that YouTube is now profitable. If so congratulations Google, and what took you so long?
I will admit that I don't in general try to make my tweets perfect but will if I see one approaching perfection work at it if I can, briefly to see if I achieve that, but if not, it's not a big deal.
But how hard can it be? I have one more perfect tweet:
Ok, I've locked down both variants of the "perfect tweet" which defines itself as perfect within the tweet while also being a perfect tweet.
That tweet is perfect.
(Hmmm...editing yet again to wonder, how many times can you use the phrase "perfect tweet" in a tweet which is itself perfect? I've managed twice above, can anyone do better?)
But when it happens I do wonder, how hard is it to do really? And, how did I do it?
Doing a web search on "perfect tweet" I see other people are using the term and differently. Oh well. Also one site has the phrase "twoosh" for a tweet of 140 characters "on the first try", which I guess means no editing.
Hmmm...maybe I should call my definition a "twee-dunk"?
Oh, I know, how about a "twee-three"?
No, basketball references may not work with all viewers...so I will still call it a perfect tweet, and others can do what they want.
James Harris
In my opinion, crucial criteria for a perfect tweet is that it be EXACTLY 140 characters, have few if any abbreviations, and is grammatical.
That tweet is 140 characters exactly and is (um, I'm fairly certain), grammatical.
Ok, updating as I got in an argument over this subject, so have a variant to handle both cases in case it turns into some kind of major thing:
In my opinion crucial criteria for a perfect tweet are that it be EXACTLY 140 characters, have few if any abbreviations, and is grammatical.
And later I found another...
The perfect tweet must have the following conditions: it must be 140 characters, be grammatically correct and have few if any abbreviations.
I'm curious, how many tweets on Twitter on any given day are perfect by those rules?
Here's one more perfect tweet:
My wild guess unsupported by inside information is that YouTube is now profitable. If so congratulations Google, and what took you so long?
I will admit that I don't in general try to make my tweets perfect but will if I see one approaching perfection work at it if I can, briefly to see if I achieve that, but if not, it's not a big deal.
But how hard can it be? I have one more perfect tweet:
Ok, I've locked down both variants of the "perfect tweet" which defines itself as perfect within the tweet while also being a perfect tweet.
That tweet is perfect.
(Hmmm...editing yet again to wonder, how many times can you use the phrase "perfect tweet" in a tweet which is itself perfect? I've managed twice above, can anyone do better?)
But when it happens I do wonder, how hard is it to do really? And, how did I do it?
Doing a web search on "perfect tweet" I see other people are using the term and differently. Oh well. Also one site has the phrase "twoosh" for a tweet of 140 characters "on the first try", which I guess means no editing.
Hmmm...maybe I should call my definition a "twee-dunk"?
Oh, I know, how about a "twee-three"?
No, basketball references may not work with all viewers...so I will still call it a perfect tweet, and others can do what they want.
James Harris
Saturday, June 13, 2009
Science and traffic jams
Link above goes to: MSNBC
Quote from the Source:
Great article and I'm glad scientists are studying these things as when I lived in the Atlanta metro area--thankfully in the Bay Area I rarely have to drive--it would be so frustrating when I figured out that a slow-down that could have you completely stopping at points was just about a lot of cars being on the road and nothing else.
Here's one more quote introducing a cool word:
That's what I'm calling them from now on as that is just a cool word: jamitons
Quote from the Source:
Math model may decrease phantom traffic jams
Method could help engineers design roads to keep traffic density low
LiveScience
updated 11:49 a.m. PT, Fri., June 12, 2009
Some traffic jams have no apparent cause — no accident, no stalled vehicle, no lanes closed for construction...
Great article and I'm glad scientists are studying these things as when I lived in the Atlanta metro area--thankfully in the Bay Area I rarely have to drive--it would be so frustrating when I figured out that a slow-down that could have you completely stopping at points was just about a lot of cars being on the road and nothing else.
Here's one more quote introducing a cool word:
Key to the new study is the realization that the mathematics of such jams, which the researchers call "jamitons," are strikingly similar to the equations that describe detonation waves produced by explosion...
That's what I'm calling them from now on as that is just a cool word: jamitons
Friday, May 01, 2009
Why we need PBV
My research on equality in mathematics and consistency, and on logic may have paid dividends with the surprisingly obvious in retrospect latest non-math research into money itself.
The simple principle I'm emphasizing is value for value: we give value in exchange for value in return, which is how our world's money systems work.
A value gap has emerged on the web because the upfront pay model doesn't work for a lot of sources, including very important ones like news providers, but there is no pay after value system in place which is probably just an oversight, as the television model of advertising seemed viable at first, but doesn't work on the active system of the web in contrast to the passive system of television.
But the advertising model is also beginning to collapse on television as a result of people using DVR's to fast forward through commercials.
Television was never free. People paid with attention--to commercials. Now increasingly they're not paying attention, collapsing business models.
Without value for value, content must suffer, and as content on newspapers and television suffer then fewer people still will be there to provide value, causing a steeper drop in value, causing a steeper drop in revenue...a vicious cycle ending in the end of the businesses.
So these industries have no choice but to find a way to get value for value or they end.
I think for most people the reality that the television industry itself may end seems impossible, and I think that the industry will start looking hard for solutions long before that occurs, but then again it might not. We have the American auto industry's travails as a model for how that can occur.
So I think it important to consider the value for value concept that I call Pay Back Value with that in mind. The passive world of television presented this idea that paying attention, as commercials got buyers for goods, and the makers of the goods were the people who then paid directly for the television shows, was enough, but that hasn't worked in the same way on the web.
It may be up to information consumers to ask for the ability to pay for valued content after they've seen its value, for instance, after reading a news article, if they are to prevent valued industries from imploding on themselves, and I have an example to show how natural the concept is, as think of restaurants.
Fast food restaurants in the U.S. ask you to pay upfront. That is like what was tried on the Internet, and it mostly failed. People don't want to pay first for information that might be crap!
But beyond fast food restaurants, at higher end restaurants people can get their food, eat it, chat with company for a while, and ask for their bill and then pay.
We take that for granted so consider a story I have from years ago when I was living in metro Atlanta, when I went to a restaurant, and while eating my meal noticed a couple just get up and leave when the only server around--it was a slow period--went to the back of the restaurant.
I was in shock. I couldn't believe those people just got up and left! The server was upset but also more sanguine than I telling me that unfortunately that did happen at times.
But most of us don't take value in the form of a meal and just leave, even if the server isn't around, and restaurants do just fine though some people do steal meals.
Our web should offer the ability to pay like a high end restaurant versus the upfront pay model of the fast food restaurant, or the no pay model which isn't supporting value because ads are not enough.
Free is not a business model that works for the web, because advertising cannot support it for most. Some may do fine, but when even large newspapers with international appeal are going down, it's time to re-think the value issue.
We need to pay back value as information consumers. It's the only way for major industries we rely on for that information, to survive.
James Harris
The simple principle I'm emphasizing is value for value: we give value in exchange for value in return, which is how our world's money systems work.
A value gap has emerged on the web because the upfront pay model doesn't work for a lot of sources, including very important ones like news providers, but there is no pay after value system in place which is probably just an oversight, as the television model of advertising seemed viable at first, but doesn't work on the active system of the web in contrast to the passive system of television.
But the advertising model is also beginning to collapse on television as a result of people using DVR's to fast forward through commercials.
Television was never free. People paid with attention--to commercials. Now increasingly they're not paying attention, collapsing business models.
Without value for value, content must suffer, and as content on newspapers and television suffer then fewer people still will be there to provide value, causing a steeper drop in value, causing a steeper drop in revenue...a vicious cycle ending in the end of the businesses.
So these industries have no choice but to find a way to get value for value or they end.
I think for most people the reality that the television industry itself may end seems impossible, and I think that the industry will start looking hard for solutions long before that occurs, but then again it might not. We have the American auto industry's travails as a model for how that can occur.
So I think it important to consider the value for value concept that I call Pay Back Value with that in mind. The passive world of television presented this idea that paying attention, as commercials got buyers for goods, and the makers of the goods were the people who then paid directly for the television shows, was enough, but that hasn't worked in the same way on the web.
It may be up to information consumers to ask for the ability to pay for valued content after they've seen its value, for instance, after reading a news article, if they are to prevent valued industries from imploding on themselves, and I have an example to show how natural the concept is, as think of restaurants.
Fast food restaurants in the U.S. ask you to pay upfront. That is like what was tried on the Internet, and it mostly failed. People don't want to pay first for information that might be crap!
But beyond fast food restaurants, at higher end restaurants people can get their food, eat it, chat with company for a while, and ask for their bill and then pay.
We take that for granted so consider a story I have from years ago when I was living in metro Atlanta, when I went to a restaurant, and while eating my meal noticed a couple just get up and leave when the only server around--it was a slow period--went to the back of the restaurant.
I was in shock. I couldn't believe those people just got up and left! The server was upset but also more sanguine than I telling me that unfortunately that did happen at times.
But most of us don't take value in the form of a meal and just leave, even if the server isn't around, and restaurants do just fine though some people do steal meals.
Our web should offer the ability to pay like a high end restaurant versus the upfront pay model of the fast food restaurant, or the no pay model which isn't supporting value because ads are not enough.
Free is not a business model that works for the web, because advertising cannot support it for most. Some may do fine, but when even large newspapers with international appeal are going down, it's time to re-think the value issue.
We need to pay back value as information consumers. It's the only way for major industries we rely on for that information, to survive.
James Harris
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)