Firstly, OO could be supported by hardware, why not>? We have had machines that supported Pascal, Cobol, and even APL on a microcoded level. Pascal which was written in pcode for a pcode virtual machine had a pcode microcoded processor from DEC, IBM had an APL microcoded machine.
You might say, well these are procedural machine definitions and you would be right, but they are only because of the computing environment available and targeted by the laguage writers.
And it did happen (in a sense) years ago with the Burroughs B1700 which was a micro coded machine that when it task switched, would load in different microcode for the task being switched in (as my understanding and memory go). The machines read in could even reconfigure the machine word size so you could be process switching between a 32 bit Cobol machine and a 64 bit Algol machine.
I suspect the same model of machine could have a seperate task for each object, configured optimally for that object...
Here is a description from the Unisys site on the B1700:
In the small computer market, the company introduced the B1700 in 1972 to compete with IBM's System/3. For a small machine the B1700 was very remarkable in that it provided virtual memory capabilities and variable micrologic in the processor, so that it could behave as either a word or character-oriented machine. Burroughs provided interpreters for COBOL, FORTRAN, BASIC, and RPG as well as emulators for the older B200 and B300 machines. The various models of the B1700 had from 24,000 to 378,000 bytes of memory and sold for $22,000 to $87,000. Sales of the 1700 series were relatively strong. The Yugoslavia n State Bank ordered 74 of them for use at its branches and in all, over 1300 B1700s were sold during its first three years. Burrou ghs 3d gen newsletter
Now lets settle down. Much of Americas history is European. That is changing now with more African American and Latino presence. We came here and shook off much of the cultural/historic bagage to form a more person centric country. Getting rid of things like indentured servitude, control by the landed aristocracy. The slavery thing we did not invent, as a British colony we had the system setup up for us. We fought a war to abolish slavery, my people died in the tens of thousands for that and to keep the country together. Only recently has the fuller benefit of that reached to the people it was supose to help.
Its good you mentioned civil war and slavery in the same breath. But one was the beginning of the solution for the other.
Now lets settle down. Much of Americas history is European. That is changing now with more African American and Latino presence. We came here and shook off much of the cultural/historic bagage to form a more person centric country. Getting rid of things like indentured servitude, control by the landed aristocracy. The slavery thing we did not invent, as a British colony we had the system setup up for us. We fought a war to abolish slavery, my people died in the tens of thousands for that and to keep the country together. Only recently has the fuller benefit of that reached to the people it was supose to help. Its good you mentioned civil war and slavery in the same breath. But one was the beginning of the solution for the other.
Actually I think Religions as part of their "package" have explainations for creation, and in a sense they try for a complete "Authoritative" view on all things, wanting to be the controlling authority (these things are necesarry if you want to have that type of control). But I see the main thrust of Religion not on the cosmology but on the rules for living. The framework behind ethics and morality. Fact or Fiction, I am not sure it matters, the ethical framework is one of the necessary components for Social and Civilized living.
So I contend that religion and science are really working at different things. Religion one part of culture that is about how we should live and live together and science is about discovering how and why things work. They should both be involved in each others work.
Look at science gone heywire with modern medicine and modern hygene, without the cultural (or religious) examination or change, we have exploding population. Surely you can see that there is an out of balance condition currently. The question is should science have slowed practical application of its discoveries, or should culture (religion) have made preparations for the change. Assuming that anyone could have predicted the extent of the change.
Wasn't it just a short time ago that we wiped off the face of the earth (conciously caused the extinction of) Smallpox, with the only stocks now left in laboratory vaults. Here they are talking about opening the Pandora's box again. It seems to me that this is wild west shoot from the hip science.
Of course dialog should be done about creation of life from scratch. And the current cultural body that addresses the issues of ethics and morality are the religions, so they are an appropriate party to the discussions. Their role in society seems to be being taken over by ethical review boards, but where do these boards get their ethics, and what are their guiding priciples. Mayb e the first step is to define a set of guiding priciples and work from their. But then each religion and ethical committee has their own, and I suspect they disagree on certain points.
So, lets have the discussions, if for no other purpose than we will all have an "I told you so" queued up when Wyoming's population is wiped out by renagade "new patented life".
If you step back from the technology and think of the HGP as a new tool, then you should ponder, a tool for whom? In our world culture of "Enlightened Self Interest" which I think has since the "Reagan Era" the shift has been more to "Enlightened Selfish Interest". If you look back at Buckminster Fullers book "Operating Manual for Spaceship Earth", he posits a grand conspiracy theory about the "Great Pirates" that came and went, their downfall was science. They controlled everything behind the scenes, then lost control when they lost understanding of the new tool, science. I suspect that with the rise of Multi-National companies with bottom lines larger than many of the countries they operate in, we may be getting into position where control is shifting to those large corporations. Those corporations have their own self interest in mind and as we have seen recently with the alleged revelations about the Tobacco industry, understanding that they have an addictive product and adjusting dosages to maintain customer loyalty (at the expense it turns out of customer health, how much of "that" was know by the same people at the same time I don't know), that those good well educated, church going, patriotic, ethical, model corporate citizens most likely , cynically, miss-used all that wonderful medical technology. I am sure that the used a lot of important, ground breaking, research in psychology and market research to fine tune their cartoon ad campaign. Look at the case of Minamata in Japan, or the need to have a "Superfund" to clean up toxic waste sites. My point here is if you look at humans, we have had a glorious track record of ethical or moral, or even smart behavior when it comes to use of technology, especially when a buck is involved. So the fears that technology will be abused are not groundless, it is really more appropriate to ask, how will they be abused, and will we survive the abuse. Two theories come to mind about species and cultural extinction. These are the Neaderthal and the Great Roman cultures. There is a theory that the invention of Clothing doomed the Neaderthals, as a species to extinction (there are now theories that suggest that there may have been some gene mingling with other modern humans so threads of that line may still exist in man). Certainly the Neaderthal no longer exists as a separate group, and their record in history abruptly disappeared. The theory goes, the ice age closed in and they developed clothing against the cold so they could stay where they were. They covered over too much skin and they were weakened by rickets (from vitamin D deficiency). Anthropologists know they have a Neanderthal find when they see a lot of signs of rickets. Here the genetics works slower than technology. You notice that Scandinavians have light skin and light hair so you can get enough vitamin D through the scalp, unlike the genetic adaptations closer to the equator. The theory about the Romans had to do with goblets that became trendy by the Elite, that just happen to have a high lead content in the glaze. The theory is that low level lead poisoning weakened the sharpness of that ruling class which eventually lead to their downfall, and with it the downfall of Rome as a world power. We have seen technology used before its impact was understood, take Asbestos insulation and brake shoes, take the sad case of thalidomide. Should we fear technology? No, but we should understand that a loaded gun can have quicker and more far-reaching and deadly consequences than a big stick. We are in another such disconnect between technology and culture having to do with modern hygiene and modern medicine and population explosion. We may not need to wait for the HGP to cause trouble, we may not have time. Cultural rules can have great survival value but they have an incredible inertia, and persistence. The Kosher Pork prohibitions prevented trichinosis in its people. I understand though that pork is kosher if the pigs are raised such that their hooves never touch the ground (the trichinosis parasite burrows threw the soft pads of the pig's feet). Here is a cultural law that has less survival relevance now but now has a life of its own and a meaning of its own probably far outside the original intent of the creators of the law. The first use of fission as a tool was to kill. Would the HGP technology have less of an effect on humans. As we have seen with fission, there have been benefits, too, with nuclear medicines, power plants (well except for all that waist, where are we going to put it?). This has been a rambling presentation of ideas, but I think they all relate to the idea that there is no technology without consequence, the HGP is the beginning of a technology to control human life at a very low level. If it were only the case that, any particular gene, or part of a gene, did only one thing, then I would feel confident that when you changed gene number 19300293593 that only a certain disease would be cured. What you can't tell me is whether changing that gene will cause you to switch from voting "Democratic" to voting "Republican". We are a complex interrelated network of all we are, and the approach to gene alteration is not addressing this issue. What is happening is that gene sequences are being patented, one company has thousands of pending patents on gene sequences, they say they will only push through patents on the sequences that look promising from an exploitation point of view. It starts. The rush to market that will start will not involve long term studies on the effect of gene alterations on behavior or cognition (which we don't have a handle on yet anyway), so here comes thalidomide again. We have reason for concern, or as Yoda would say "You Will Be Afraid"
Slashdot Mirror
You might say, well these are procedural machine definitions and you would be right, but they are only because of the computing environment available and targeted by the laguage writers.
And it did happen (in a sense) years ago with the Burroughs B1700 which was a micro coded machine that when it task switched, would load in different microcode for the task being switched in (as my understanding and memory go). The machines read in could even reconfigure the machine word size so you could be process switching between a 32 bit Cobol machine and a 64 bit Algol machine.
I suspect the same model of machine could have a seperate task for each object, configured optimally for that object ...
Here is a description from the Unisys site on the B1700:
In the small computer market, the company introduced the B1700 in 1972 to compete with IBM's System/3. For a small machine the B1700 was very remarkable in that it provided virtual memory capabilities and variable micrologic in the processor, so that it could behave as either a word or character-oriented machine. Burroughs provided interpreters for COBOL, FORTRAN, BASIC, and RPG as well as emulators for the older B200 and B300 machines. The various models of the B1700 had from 24,000 to 378,000 bytes of memory and sold for $22,000 to $87,000. Sales of the 1700 series were relatively strong. The Yugoslavia n State Bank ordered 74 of them for use at its branches and in all, over 1300 B1700s were sold during its first three years. Burrou ghs 3d gen newsletter
Too bad OO was just a glimmer then.
Now lets settle down. Much of Americas history is European. That is changing now with more African American and Latino presence. We came here and shook off much of the cultural/historic bagage to form a more person centric country. Getting rid of things like indentured servitude, control by the landed aristocracy. The slavery thing we did not invent, as a British colony we had the system setup up for us. We fought a war to abolish slavery, my people died in the tens of thousands for that and to keep the country together. Only recently has the fuller benefit of that reached to the people it was supose to help.
Its good you mentioned civil war and slavery in the same breath. But one was the beginning of the solution for the other.
Now lets settle down. Much of Americas history is European. That is changing now with more African American and Latino presence. We came here and shook off much of the cultural/historic bagage to form a more person centric country. Getting rid of things like indentured servitude, control by the landed aristocracy. The slavery thing we did not invent, as a British colony we had the system setup up for us. We fought a war to abolish slavery, my people died in the tens of thousands for that and to keep the country together. Only recently has the fuller benefit of that reached to the people it was supose to help. Its good you mentioned civil war and slavery in the same breath. But one was the beginning of the solution for the other.
Actually I think Religions as part of their "package" have explainations for creation, and in a sense they try for a complete "Authoritative" view on all things, wanting to be the controlling authority (these things are necesarry if you want to have that type of control). But I see the main thrust of Religion not on the cosmology but on the rules for living. The framework behind ethics and morality. Fact or Fiction, I am not sure it matters, the ethical framework is one of the necessary components for Social and Civilized living.
So I contend that religion and science are really working at different things. Religion one part of culture that is about how we should live and live together and science is about discovering how and why things work. They should both be involved in each others work.
Look at science gone heywire with modern medicine and modern hygene, without the cultural (or religious) examination or change, we have exploding population. Surely you can see that there is an out of balance condition currently. The question is should science have slowed practical application of its discoveries, or should culture (religion) have made preparations for the change. Assuming that anyone could have predicted the extent of the change.
Wasn't it just a short time ago that we wiped off the face of the earth (conciously caused the extinction of) Smallpox, with the only stocks now left in laboratory vaults. Here they are talking about opening the Pandora's box again. It seems to me that this is wild west shoot from the hip science.
Of course dialog should be done about creation of life from scratch. And the current cultural body that addresses the issues of ethics and morality are the religions, so they are an appropriate party to the discussions. Their role in society seems to be being taken over by ethical review boards, but where do these boards get their ethics, and what are their guiding priciples. Mayb e the first step is to define a set of guiding priciples and work from their. But then each religion and ethical committee has their own, and I suspect they disagree on certain points.
So, lets have the discussions, if for no other purpose than we will all have an "I told you so" queued up when Wyoming's population is wiped out by renagade "new patented life".
If you step back from the technology and think of the HGP as a new tool, then you should ponder, a tool for whom? In our world culture of "Enlightened Self Interest" which I think has since the "Reagan Era" the shift has been more to "Enlightened Selfish Interest". If you look back at Buckminster Fullers book "Operating Manual for Spaceship Earth", he posits a grand conspiracy theory about the "Great Pirates" that came and went, their downfall was science. They controlled everything behind the scenes, then lost control when they lost understanding of the new tool, science. I suspect that with the rise of Multi-National companies with bottom lines larger than many of the countries they operate in, we may be getting into position where control is shifting to those large corporations. Those corporations have their own self interest in mind and as we have seen recently with the alleged revelations about the Tobacco industry, understanding that they have an addictive product and adjusting dosages to maintain customer loyalty (at the expense it turns out of customer health, how much of "that" was know by the same people at the same time I don't know), that those good well educated, church going, patriotic, ethical, model corporate citizens most likely , cynically, miss-used all that wonderful medical technology. I am sure that the used a lot of important, ground breaking, research in psychology and market research to fine tune their cartoon ad campaign. Look at the case of Minamata in Japan, or the need to have a "Superfund" to clean up toxic waste sites. My point here is if you look at humans, we have had a glorious track record of ethical or moral, or even smart behavior when it comes to use of technology, especially when a buck is involved. So the fears that technology will be abused are not groundless, it is really more appropriate to ask, how will they be abused, and will we survive the abuse. Two theories come to mind about species and cultural extinction. These are the Neaderthal and the Great Roman cultures. There is a theory that the invention of Clothing doomed the Neaderthals, as a species to extinction (there are now theories that suggest that there may have been some gene mingling with other modern humans so threads of that line may still exist in man). Certainly the Neaderthal no longer exists as a separate group, and their record in history abruptly disappeared. The theory goes, the ice age closed in and they developed clothing against the cold so they could stay where they were. They covered over too much skin and they were weakened by rickets (from vitamin D deficiency). Anthropologists know they have a Neanderthal find when they see a lot of signs of rickets. Here the genetics works slower than technology. You notice that Scandinavians have light skin and light hair so you can get enough vitamin D through the scalp, unlike the genetic adaptations closer to the equator. The theory about the Romans had to do with goblets that became trendy by the Elite, that just happen to have a high lead content in the glaze. The theory is that low level lead poisoning weakened the sharpness of that ruling class which eventually lead to their downfall, and with it the downfall of Rome as a world power. We have seen technology used before its impact was understood, take Asbestos insulation and brake shoes, take the sad case of thalidomide. Should we fear technology? No, but we should understand that a loaded gun can have quicker and more far-reaching and deadly consequences than a big stick. We are in another such disconnect between technology and culture having to do with modern hygiene and modern medicine and population explosion. We may not need to wait for the HGP to cause trouble, we may not have time. Cultural rules can have great survival value but they have an incredible inertia, and persistence. The Kosher Pork prohibitions prevented trichinosis in its people. I understand though that pork is kosher if the pigs are raised such that their hooves never touch the ground (the trichinosis parasite burrows threw the soft pads of the pig's feet). Here is a cultural law that has less survival relevance now but now has a life of its own and a meaning of its own probably far outside the original intent of the creators of the law. The first use of fission as a tool was to kill. Would the HGP technology have less of an effect on humans. As we have seen with fission, there have been benefits, too, with nuclear medicines, power plants (well except for all that waist, where are we going to put it?). This has been a rambling presentation of ideas, but I think they all relate to the idea that there is no technology without consequence, the HGP is the beginning of a technology to control human life at a very low level. If it were only the case that, any particular gene, or part of a gene, did only one thing, then I would feel confident that when you changed gene number 19300293593 that only a certain disease would be cured. What you can't tell me is whether changing that gene will cause you to switch from voting "Democratic" to voting "Republican". We are a complex interrelated network of all we are, and the approach to gene alteration is not addressing this issue. What is happening is that gene sequences are being patented, one company has thousands of pending patents on gene sequences, they say they will only push through patents on the sequences that look promising from an exploitation point of view. It starts. The rush to market that will start will not involve long term studies on the effect of gene alterations on behavior or cognition (which we don't have a handle on yet anyway), so here comes thalidomide again. We have reason for concern, or as Yoda would say "You Will Be Afraid"