Because it doesn't have a interactive, iterative, intuitive programming environment that lets you control, inspect, and explore all aspects of the runtime system. (not just an "IDE" ala emacs, something more complete)
Because it's not as elegantly simple and consistent as other languages (i.e. Smalltalk or Self).
I know what's it's like to be a language bigot (i'm one too), but no language is perfect.
Do some more research before you blow smoke yourself. While there is always something to munch on something else, hemp has very few predators (be them insect, fungus or animal) compared to most of the commercial crops we grow now, including corn (be it GM or not!).
On the other hand, there are a zillion "head" websites touting the stuff. The question is why? The answer must be that they think getting drugless hemp legalized will somehow get them better access to Thai Stick or something.
I did a little research, and it seems only 5 white, rich men care about the civil rights that everyone deserves. On the other hand, there are all of those whiney minority "people" blathering on about civil rights. I suppose they think that if they had the same rights as the rest of us, they'd just have an easier time abusing the welfare system!
It has nothing to do with legalizing drugs. Hemp has been a valuable plant of many uses for hundreds of years. Skim The Emperor Wears No Clothes. It lists all of the accepted uses of Hemp prior to criminalization. It is still used extensively worldwide. Can you think of an argument against industrial hemp other than some company's profit margin?
The point is, hemp is a solution we have now, and have had for thousands of years. It's cheap, it's incredibly useful, it's been proven safe over and over again, and is available now. Can you think of one thing that is wrong with that? Or would you rather be eating more pesticidal residues, drinking water with more impurities, and breathing dirtier air?
If you're going to bring drugs into this, that would be a whole different bucket of fish. America is wasting it's money on fighting the "War on Drugs," achieving no real progress, and doing nothing but harming a lot of people who didn't commit any serious crime. 90% of all marijuana related arrests are for possession, not intent to sell or anything above that.
So it's stronger than cotton. Is it stronger than flax or jute or nylon and as soft as cotton? Because maybe that's why it's not in demand as a fiber. As-scrungy alternatives may exist.
It's stronger than flax and jute (I have no data re: nylon), and softer than cotton.
First of all, trying something once isn't definitive. Anyone who has any semblence of rational or scientific thought in their head knows that. All FUD.
"Hempseed can be pressed for its highly nutritious vegetable oil, which contains the highest amount of essential fatty acids in trhe plant kingdom. These essential oils are responsible for our immune responses and clear the arteries of cholesterol and plaque. "
Um, well, the real issue is... you know those plants you've been eating? we DO NOT (sorry, had to repeat the capitalization for fun ; ) have any long term data on what you've been eating does to humans. Why? Because genes change almost every generation. Its through the magic of these things called "mutations". Genetic engineering is no different than the random mutations we're seing here, except for one thing - *its controlled!*. We actually have a clue about what's going to happen, instead of just a random fluctuation. Please, think about these things before you have a knee-jerk reaction.
Uhh... Why does having an organism changed by a design employing incomplete knowledge seem so safe to you? Genetic engineering is a lot different than natural mutations. If only because it is controlled. The way we implement and practice genetic engineering is in a way that encourages and enforces monoculture. Meaning, that if there is something dangerous it effects all the more people, animals, and ecosystems.
And... I know you love hemp... don't we all, you can build bridges out of it, cure cancer, establish lasting peace in the middle east... but, sorry, it doesn't work for everything;) It is a plant. Plain and simple. Yes, it has some uses that have been neglected because of paranoia. But, sorry, it doesn't do everything. There are millions of species out there with admirable traits, and hemp is just one.
Do you think it's justified to spend billions of dollars to engineer an organism to solve problems that Hemp already does? Is it worth it? Add into the mix the fact that we don't know that these GMOs aren't safe? But we think they're probably safe, so that must be good enough, right?
No. At best, it's a waste of time. At worst, it could be a dangerous waste of time.
Industrial hemp as we know it now is almost THC free (useless for it's drug value, you'd have to smoke a tollbooth sized joint, but then the smoke would most likely suffocate you), is high yield, grows fast, and is 2 to 3 times stronger than cotton.
Hemp has no natural enemies, other than the DEA and the US government. It has no insect pests, and thus needs no pesticides.
Not only that, hemp probably requires less resources (fertilizer and space) than corn, be it a biotech or non-biotech strain.
Let me remind/educate those that do not know: industrial hemp does not contain enough cannaboids to produce a high. So, no, people could not smoke their t-shirt.
Yet, the DEA itself as admitted that 94-97% of all Cannabis plants it has siezed since the 1960s were of wild or industrial strains that had no value as a recreational drug!
It's actually quite curious that it's DuPont coming forth with these "innovative" life forms, when they had something to do with the illegalization of industrial hemp, promoting it, to expand and support their own business.
I suggest those of you interested in truly sustainable food, fuel, building products, paper, and medicine have a look at Jack Herer's Book, The Emperor Wears No Clothes. The most relevant chapter in this context is Chapter 2.
So, biotech may not be "all that bad," as far as we know now. But why bother pouring so much money into problems where we already have a completely natural, safe, agriculturally, economically, and environmentally wise solution in Hemp? So companies like DuPont can make money. At the expense of both consumers and non-consumers. It's disgusting.
Hemp already can replace petroleum. Hemp is renewable. But as long as our minds see naught but the vision of totalitarian agriculture and capitalism, we will not utilize any truly renewable resources. Think of it like open source- with biotech crop crops, they own the rights to the plants, which often produce sterile seeds. It is against the license to distribute seeds. Whereas, with Hemp, it's basically open source- you grow a plant, reuse it's seed. It renews itself, and makes sure that we don't rely on one patent holding company who decides what and when to sell us.
No, my comment was a joke, not yours. I've never heard any one refer to any random desktop environment as CDE or Common Desktop Environment. CDE is a particular product. I mean, I don't refer to all cars as Buicks... But then again, it's common for people in the American south to refer to any soda pop as coke./me shrugs.
First of all, most Slashdot kiddies are confusing Computer Science with programming.
Computer Science is not about the language being used. Computer Science is about the problems being solved. Yes, sometimes solving the problem involves writing a new language. As much as I dislike Java and C++ as languages, they can still be used to teach basic CS concepts without incident.
Computer Science is not about being as close to the machine as possible. That's largely branched off into Electrical and Computer Engineering. You can learn about the theoretic basis of CS using assembly, but it won't really get you anything over other languages other than a headache and a better understanding of ECE. It's still CS, but not magically "more" CS because you're working closer to machine level.
I learned the basics of Computer Science (not just "programming") in college using C and C++. I really don't like to actually have to use C, even though I think it's a nice language theoretically. I abhor C++. Java is annoying as hell, but I'd much rather do app-level coding in it any day over C++.
You can learn linked lists, hash tables, recursion, and everything else is almost any language. It makes a lot more sense and can be easier to teach CS concepts in somelanguages, but you can do OO, procedural or functional programming in most any language, it just may be a lot more work.
I have heard NeXT people say a lot of things, but I have never heard someone who liked the interface that much.
Even my Mac-rabid gf will admit that NeXT's UI was more elegant than Apple's. Also, stop by comp.sys.next.* for more zealous personal preferences...
Is there any (free) way to run NeXTSTEP on Intel hardware?
Not free and legally. NeXTSTEP 3.x and OpenStep 4.x run on x86 hardware. You can run in to it on eBay, but it'd probably be easier for someone to give you a copy. I doubt Apple will hunt you down. I recieved OpenStep 4.2 (for all architectures), OpenStep Developer, EOF, and OpenStep for Windows for simply owning a cube as part of Apple's Y2k fulfillment program.
Then install an X window package. A nice, free, rootless one is here. Generally, Joe Average User doesn't want or need X11 apps and the requisite X11 server. I'm starting to believe that Joe Average Whiney-Slashdot-Reader has a much harder time working through this than the rest of the world...
You'll also want to make a symbolic link from 'cc' to 'gcc' and probably 'c++' to 'g++' or whatever else you feel like. GCC is called 'cc,' not 'gcc.' But then again, if someone competant wrote the makefile, it's all good... otherwise, you might have to change "CC=gcc" to "CC=cc" or something along those lines.
Heh. I present to you the new definition of "user friendly:" it's only friendly if RMS says so! Just like the new definition of "free:" it's only free if RMS says so! Yeah!
According to NetCraft that server is running WebSTAR on Mac OS, which only runs on classic Mac OS, I believe. It's Apple hardware, yes, but not Mac OS X, the OS in question.:) But bringing that link up, it's interesting to know that Roland's Keyboard shop is also running WebSTAR on Mac OS... a shopping site, a dynamic site.
Apple -- no, STEVE -- threw out a decade of GUI evolution so that he could force his pet project onto us, that being the NeXT way of doing things. NeXT was his baby, and he can't let it go. Steve has an incredibly large ego.
Steve has a monsterous ego. But frankly, it's getting old to hear Mac users whine about how Mac OS X's GUI is the "NeXT way" or just like NeXTSTEP/OpenStep, abandoning classic Mac OS' way of doing things.
It's not all that much like NeXTSTEP/OpenStep. Then again, it's not all that much like Mac OS, either. There are elements of both in there, and it is very much so the bastard child. I liked the NeXT GUI a lot more than Mac OS X's. I could ramble on and on, but let me tell you, as a user of NeXTSTEP (still got 3.3 on my cube), OpenStep, and Rhapsody Mac OS X isn't all that much like the NeXT GUI. Rhapsody and Mac OS X Server were.
By any measure, the OS9 interface is better.
By any measure, the NeXTSTEP interface is better than OS 9 or Mac OS X. As a Mac user, I'm sure you know that feeling of having to use Windows- the feeling that you're being held back by it's GUI. That is what a user of NeXTSTEP feels when he has to use Mac OS, X+whatever window manager, or Windows.
Re:Break out? Can they hang on is the question
on
OSX/Win2K Deathmatch
·
· Score: 2
> They also have ZERO chance of replacing the
> WinTel hegemony on corporate desktops.
Frankly, I don't think they do either. But I don't think they're trying to. You're displaying typical American capitalist thought- all of the market or none of it. That's not the way the market is, or has to be. Apple isn't trying to be Microsoft.
I wouldn't say it failed miserably. Specific products, like NeXTSTEP, OpenStep and NeXT's hardware didn't survive, no. But the ideas behind them, the vision, if you will, is thriving in Mac OS X. It's shipping now, installed on new Macs and ones users have already purchased. Get over it.
Slashdot Mirror
Because it's not as elegantly simple and consistent as other languages (i.e. Smalltalk or Self).
I know what's it's like to be a language bigot (i'm one too), but no language is perfect.
Do some more research before you blow smoke yourself. While there is always something to munch on something else, hemp has very few predators (be them insect, fungus or animal) compared to most of the commercial crops we grow now, including corn (be it GM or not!).
I did a little research, and it seems only 5 white, rich men care about the civil rights that everyone deserves. On the other hand, there are all of those whiney minority "people" blathering on about civil rights. I suppose they think that if they had the same rights as the rest of us, they'd just have an easier time abusing the welfare system!
It has nothing to do with legalizing drugs. Hemp has been a valuable plant of many uses for hundreds of years. Skim The Emperor Wears No Clothes. It lists all of the accepted uses of Hemp prior to criminalization. It is still used extensively worldwide. Can you think of an argument against industrial hemp other than some company's profit margin?
The point is, hemp is a solution we have now, and have had for thousands of years. It's cheap, it's incredibly useful, it's been proven safe over and over again, and is available now. Can you think of one thing that is wrong with that? Or would you rather be eating more pesticidal residues, drinking water with more impurities, and breathing dirtier air?
If you're going to bring drugs into this, that would be a whole different bucket of fish. America is wasting it's money on fighting the "War on Drugs," achieving no real progress, and doing nothing but harming a lot of people who didn't commit any serious crime. 90% of all marijuana related arrests are for possession, not intent to sell or anything above that.
So it's stronger than cotton. Is it stronger than flax or jute or nylon and as soft as cotton? Because maybe that's why it's not in demand as a fiber. As-scrungy alternatives may exist.
It's stronger than flax and jute (I have no data re: nylon), and softer than cotton.
right on. sometimes, we forget just how cool X can be. :)
First of all, trying something once isn't definitive. Anyone who has any semblence of rational or scientific thought in their head knows that. All FUD.
Aside that, Hempseed is one of the most complete foodstuffs known to humanity. From The Emperor Wears No Clothes, Chapter 2:
"Hempseed can be pressed for its highly nutritious vegetable oil, which contains the highest amount of essential fatty acids in trhe plant kingdom. These essential oils are responsible for our immune responses and clear the arteries of cholesterol and plaque. "
Uhh... Why does having an organism changed by a design employing incomplete knowledge seem so safe to you? Genetic engineering is a lot different than natural mutations. If only because it is controlled. The way we implement and practice genetic engineering is in a way that encourages and enforces monoculture. Meaning, that if there is something dangerous it effects all the more people, animals, and ecosystems. And... I know you love hemp... don't we all, you can build bridges out of it, cure cancer, establish lasting peace in the middle east... but, sorry, it doesn't work for everything ;) It is a plant. Plain and simple. Yes, it has some uses that have been neglected because of paranoia. But, sorry, it doesn't do everything. There are millions of species out there with admirable traits, and hemp is just one.
Do you think it's justified to spend billions of dollars to engineer an organism to solve problems that Hemp already does? Is it worth it? Add into the mix the fact that we don't know that these GMOs aren't safe? But we think they're probably safe, so that must be good enough, right?
No. At best, it's a waste of time. At worst, it could be a dangerous waste of time.
Industrial hemp as we know it now is almost THC free (useless for it's drug value, you'd have to smoke a tollbooth sized joint, but then the smoke would most likely suffocate you), is high yield, grows fast, and is 2 to 3 times stronger than cotton.
Hemp has no natural enemies, other than the DEA and the US government. It has no insect pests, and thus needs no pesticides. Not only that, hemp probably requires less resources (fertilizer and space) than corn, be it a biotech or non-biotech strain.
Let me remind/educate those that do not know: industrial hemp does not contain enough cannaboids to produce a high. So, no, people could not smoke their t-shirt.
Yet, the DEA itself as admitted that 94-97% of all Cannabis plants it has siezed since the 1960s were of wild or industrial strains that had no value as a recreational drug!
It's actually quite curious that it's DuPont coming forth with these "innovative" life forms, when they had something to do with the illegalization of industrial hemp, promoting it, to expand and support their own business.
I suggest those of you interested in truly sustainable food, fuel, building products, paper, and medicine have a look at Jack Herer's Book, The Emperor Wears No Clothes. The most relevant chapter in this context is Chapter 2.
So, biotech may not be "all that bad," as far as we know now. But why bother pouring so much money into problems where we already have a completely natural, safe, agriculturally, economically, and environmentally wise solution in Hemp? So companies like DuPont can make money. At the expense of both consumers and non-consumers. It's disgusting.
Hemp already can replace petroleum. Hemp is renewable. But as long as our minds see naught but the vision of totalitarian agriculture and capitalism, we will not utilize any truly renewable resources. Think of it like open source- with biotech crop crops, they own the rights to the plants, which often produce sterile seeds. It is against the license to distribute seeds. Whereas, with Hemp, it's basically open source- you grow a plant, reuse it's seed. It renews itself, and makes sure that we don't rely on one patent holding company who decides what and when to sell us.
What is Google?
No, my comment was a joke, not yours. I've never heard any one refer to any random desktop environment as CDE or Common Desktop Environment. CDE is a particular product. I mean, I don't refer to all cars as Buicks... But then again, it's common for people in the American south to refer to any soda pop as coke. /me shrugs.
Computer Science is not about the language being used. Computer Science is about the problems being solved. Yes, sometimes solving the problem involves writing a new language. As much as I dislike Java and C++ as languages, they can still be used to teach basic CS concepts without incident.
Computer Science is not about being as close to the machine as possible. That's largely branched off into Electrical and Computer Engineering. You can learn about the theoretic basis of CS using assembly, but it won't really get you anything over other languages other than a headache and a better understanding of ECE. It's still CS, but not magically "more" CS because you're working closer to machine level.
I learned the basics of Computer Science (not just "programming") in college using C and C++. I really don't like to actually have to use C, even though I think it's a nice language theoretically. I abhor C++. Java is annoying as hell, but I'd much rather do app-level coding in it any day over C++.
You can learn linked lists, hash tables, recursion, and everything else is almost any language. It makes a lot more sense and can be easier to teach CS concepts in some languages, but you can do OO, procedural or functional programming in most any language, it just may be a lot more work.
Heh. Someone with mod points like CDE! It was a joke, for chrissakes!
Heh. God help them.
Even my Mac-rabid gf will admit that NeXT's UI was more elegant than Apple's. Also, stop by comp.sys.next.* for more zealous personal preferences... Is there any (free) way to run NeXTSTEP on Intel hardware?
Not free and legally. NeXTSTEP 3.x and OpenStep 4.x run on x86 hardware. You can run in to it on eBay, but it'd probably be easier for someone to give you a copy. I doubt Apple will hunt you down. I recieved OpenStep 4.2 (for all architectures), OpenStep Developer, EOF, and OpenStep for Windows for simply owning a cube as part of Apple's Y2k fulfillment program.
Then install an X window package. A nice, free, rootless one is here. Generally, Joe Average User doesn't want or need X11 apps and the requisite X11 server. I'm starting to believe that Joe Average Whiney-Slashdot-Reader has a much harder time working through this than the rest of the world...
You'll also want to make a symbolic link from 'cc' to 'gcc' and probably 'c++' to 'g++' or whatever else you feel like. GCC is called 'cc,' not 'gcc.' But then again, if someone competant wrote the makefile, it's all good... otherwise, you might have to change "CC=gcc" to "CC=cc" or something along those lines.
Heh. I present to you the new definition of "user friendly:" it's only friendly if RMS says so! Just like the new definition of "free:" it's only free if RMS says so! Yeah!
Heh. And Mac OS (classic/X) supports "everything it was designed to operate with" too.
heh. I hope that was supposed to be a joke. One word: Carbon.
I'll have to agree with you on 4. Takes a while to boot, but after that, it's just about as fast as running the apps under real Mac OS 9.
...and? In classic Mac OS, you install drivers by copying an extension to harddrive:System Folder:Extensions. :)
According to NetCraft that server is running WebSTAR on Mac OS, which only runs on classic Mac OS, I believe. It's Apple hardware, yes, but not Mac OS X, the OS in question. :) But bringing that link up, it's interesting to know that Roland's Keyboard shop is also running WebSTAR on Mac OS... a shopping site, a dynamic site.
Steve has a monsterous ego. But frankly, it's getting old to hear Mac users whine about how Mac OS X's GUI is the "NeXT way" or just like NeXTSTEP/OpenStep, abandoning classic Mac OS' way of doing things.
It's not all that much like NeXTSTEP/OpenStep. Then again, it's not all that much like Mac OS, either. There are elements of both in there, and it is very much so the bastard child. I liked the NeXT GUI a lot more than Mac OS X's. I could ramble on and on, but let me tell you, as a user of NeXTSTEP (still got 3.3 on my cube), OpenStep, and Rhapsody Mac OS X isn't all that much like the NeXT GUI. Rhapsody and Mac OS X Server were.
By any measure, the OS9 interface is better.
By any measure, the NeXTSTEP interface is better than OS 9 or Mac OS X. As a Mac user, I'm sure you know that feeling of having to use Windows- the feeling that you're being held back by it's GUI. That is what a user of NeXTSTEP feels when he has to use Mac OS, X+whatever window manager, or Windows.
Frankly, I don't think they do either. But I don't think they're trying to. You're displaying typical American capitalist thought- all of the market or none of it. That's not the way the market is, or has to be. Apple isn't trying to be Microsoft.
I wouldn't say it failed miserably. Specific products, like NeXTSTEP, OpenStep and NeXT's hardware didn't survive, no. But the ideas behind them, the vision, if you will, is thriving in Mac OS X. It's shipping now, installed on new Macs and ones users have already purchased. Get over it.