> 140 Gig, in a couple of years? Only if you don't upgrade.
I don't follow the bleeding edge. Right now I'm still on an IBM 16GXP 16.8GB, and it's far from full. And the computer is a Celly 366 o/c'ed to 460 with 192MB RAM. I'm guessing my next drive will be in the 80-120GB category when it's time to upgrade.
Regarding backups, you're right, people don't do it much anymore. I certainly don't, mainly because it's such a hassle. Removable drives don't cut it, I don't have that kind of patience. Tape would work I suppose, but it's not important enough to me to spend $500 or so. I've been meaning to put a 486 machine with a 30GB drive on the network with some remote backup software to pull a copy of all important data from all machines at night, but that priority is pretty damn low.
Let's take it on good faith that this is not vaporware and will actually ship within the next 5 years--a fairly reasonable timeframe I think. That means that finally removable storage density has caught up with hard drives, and that it doesn't take 10-100 disks anymore to backup a modern HD.
This brings us to another important topic, data transfer rates. Most decent removable drives connect to IDE, SCSI, USB and parallel port. Forget the last two, they offer only convenience but no performance. Even with IDE and SCSI all current removable drives peak at way below their top rates. Let's assume a very optimistic 10MB/s (which is closer to HD transfer rates than removable drives) and do the math for a 140GB disk:
So it would take me about four hours to fill that disk with data. In a couple of years my main HD will be about that size, and it will take me 4h to do a full backup. For backups that might be somewhat tolerable, but these disks will be hawked as super floppies. Pop it in, drag that HDTV movie onto it, wait a couple of hours, remove it and run to your friend's house to play it. What's wrong with that scenario?
What I'm saying is that we're approaching storage densities where our current data transfer busses simply can't reasonably cope anymore. We really need gigabit level transfer rates, and media that can cope with that kind of read/write speed. I simply can't see sequential technology like HD and CD-ROM keeping up. We need either new materials that can write MUCH faster or new parallel access technologies that read/write multiple tracks at once. And the transfer technology that goes with that--maybe gigabit ethernet, 1.6Gb 1394 or who knows what.
if MS truly wanted to prove their interest in cross-platform functionality, they would have ported COM to as many platforms as possible AND pushed it hard on all those platforms (I know it was ported to some Unix, but who exactly is using it?). Instead, they used it as a Windows fragmentation tool to bury IE deep into the OS to the point of inextractability. COM as a cross-platform standard could have been a very useful tool. It seems to be considerably more lightweight than CORBA (haven't looked too much at CORBA though), and it's extremely popular on the number one desktop OS. If Linux had COM support, they might not have had to duplicate its functionality with KDE parts (if that's what it's called). It would have also allowed Linux to mesh more seamlessly into Windows networks, maybe as an MTS/Apache host. Of course, that would have boosted Linux popularity, so strike that.
The ideas behind.NET are quite compelling. COM lacks some of the crucial elements of OO (such as inheritance), which.NET addresses in a language-independent way. The idea of taking an off-the-shelf binary component, extending it (in potentially another langue) and creating a new component from it is very appealing. But the compromises this all entails might be too much to swallow for many people for quite some time. I'm still not sure how I feel about it myself yet, I'll let some time go by and see how things work out--not that I have a choice anyway.
I believe IL stands for Intermediate Language, not Interpretive. MS vehemently oppose that.NET uses a VM, they push hard on the JIT angle. In fact, they've elevated it to a verb, JIT-ing.
Besides, any claims of future cross-platform availability of MS technolgies can be safely filed under "bullshit". It sounds good to say now, and might win some early converts, but once the smoke clears it will be Windows all the way. Witness Internet Explorer for Unix (mind you, not for Linux), the orphan child.
Another issue to keep in mind is that cross platform is easier said than done. This has been written about at great lengths after the Java smoke cleared and people were wondering why code isn't as portable as was promised. Most non-trivial apps--particularly UI-intesive ones--make use of a lot of platform-specific features that are not portable. That (and performance of Swing) is why Java is more popular in the non-GUI server world. Those issues are not suddenly going to go away with.NET. If anything, they're going to get worse, because MS loves to push the Windows GUI to the extreme. Try porting the latest Office GUI to Linux. Good look.
A very small case like this with an intergrated power supply and a motherboard tailored to fit inside is perfect for a lot of custom devices. Such as an MP3 player, for example. Hook the audio up to you stereo, connect it to your network, whip up (or go find) some software with a nice UI that can pull MP3s off another host on the network, and you're set. Or put in your own HD and store the stuff there.
is actually the bigger problem. The French can't even keep basic . and , and : in the same place. I can deal with a few letters being in different places, but if you have to shift for . that's pretty damn stupid. Compared to that the German layout is almost benign: the Y and Z are swapped, but at least the punctuation cluster is the same.
The Crusoe chips in their current incarnations are simply x86 wannabees. They emphasise power thriftiness over performance. Therefore if Intel and AMD come out with equally power efficient chips, their advantage would be gone. Besides, as has been pointed out numerous times, the CPU is only one part in the power budget of a portable, and not even the largest one.
Transmeta should instead apply the code morphing technology in fields without ready competitors. Maybe something like a Java chip, or something fitting into Microsoft's.NET architecture. Or develop a hybrid chip that can switch between x86 and PPC instruction sets dynamically, allowing you to run Windows and MacOS for example on the same machine at the same time. There are lots of issues that would make the latter pretty hard beside the CPU, but my point is to take advantage of your strengths to do something your competitors can't.
That's quite true. I guess I was thinking mainly of the inconvenience at the time of sickness. In fact, one should encourage the kids to eat dirt and lick the floors, because it only strengthens their immune system--unless they lap up some Ebola or something:-)
> the resentment that housewives have felt is not due to what they're doing, it's simply bcos they
> were pressured into it instead of taking it on voluntarily.
Absolutely, I can't disagree with that. I personally know career women that had children and chose to give up their careers for them, and that's what they wanted all their lives. It fulfills them being a parent.
But this is not true of all women, probably not even most. It's just that women in general are conditioned by society to be the giver and to demure, even if they have strong personalities. I look at my wife, normally a very strong and assertive person, and still around the house she's sort of silently picking up the slack. In most households women do considerably more work than men. If it were the other way around, most men would vehemently complain. I often recognize this about myself and hate myself for it and strive harder to change it. But a lifetime of conditioning is hard to counteract:-) Just look at children growing up, girls are much more ofter called to task on household chores than boys.
I feel the argument for men staying home is as strong as the one for women staying home. It's a matter of personal aspirations and values.
My personal view is that society has degenerated into an environment very hostile for raising children. The whole workplace mechanics have evolved into a very strong separation of work and personal life. I feel that if companies provided an environment where children could spend the day in relative proximity to their parents, this could have a huge impact on the dynamics of the family. There are some progressive companies that have started to offer daycare for their employees with ready access for the parents to the kids throughout the day. This could work fairly well for large companies, blue or white collar factories.
As technology evolves and telecommuting becomes more mainstream, I can see a future where companies decentralize themselves into satellite offices with more informal work environments and integrated child care facilities. This could bring us somewhat back to that idyllic past of the village raising the children. Of course, the ideal would be for both parents to work at the same facility to provide equal access, but this involves personal choices in partner selection and goes beyond what an employer can do.
I'm working for them again since September, as a contractor. The offer was too good to pass up, and since I'm not planning on sticking around forever, contracting is fine. In Chattanooga certainly we have loads of contractors. It seems in my building there are more red-badgers than blue ones.
From age 3 on I went regularly to kindergarten until school. That was a very enjoyable time and provided me with interaction opportunities my mother at home couldn't have given me.
My two-year-old twins (boy and girl) started going to daycare at age two. Being twins has definitely helped their personal development (the girl is by far the dominant one, as in most cases it seems). However, since they went to daycare, the boy has really flourished and developed at a much faster pace than before. While there are downsides to daycare (such as more frequent sickness), overall it's a definite advantage. Studies show time and again that kids who went to daycare and kindergarten later on socialize much more successfully.
Trouble is, she says the same thing about me. What--other than gender stereotypes--says that she should stay at home? She enjoys her career as much as I enjoy mine. And I enjoy mine way too much to give it up and stay home with kids.
The funny thing is that the stay-at-home-mom approach is most often offered up by people who have never spent any serious amount of time caring for young children and have very bizzare notions of the fulfilment that would bring. Dig deeper with many full time house wives and you will find layers upon layers of resentment and dissatisfaction. However, too many of them have been conditioned into accepting this as the norm, so they would feel like a bad parent if they ever admitted these feelings. There have been plenty of studies on this, it's nothing new.
This model worked for most of history because in most civilizations the female played a sacrificial role. She was not the equal of the male, so most avenues of self-fulfillment were closed to her. Besides, females have breasts, which are for feeding children, right? What better proof that they are meant to be the caretakers?
If you work for the Federal Government you're much more likely to be a contractor than an actual employee. I've worked twice for the TVA, both times as a contractor. Federal agencies are under constant pressure to appear to be reducing head count, so they often shift work to contracting agencies because those moneys come from different funds. But as a contractor you probably won't see any of these raises talked about here.
> So my point is the "stuff" isn't coming from "the US". I am not "the US". I am an
> individual who sees unfortunate things come out both the US and Germany.
I can see your lips move, but they don't match your words. Trouble is, when it suits your moral mood you ride high on American righteousness and mention many of America's perceived virtues as your very own moral code. When the shit hits the fan, you leave the room. You've got to take the good with the bad, buddy.
Nobody is denying Germany's legacy with its Jewish members, least of all those of us of German extraction or nationality. It treated some of its most productive citizens the worst, and in the process made America what it is today. Still, as an American I would be careful to point a finger too long at Germany, since over the course of its history the US have easily committed atrocities on the same level. Germany just compressed them into twelve years. There are other countries (and their citizens) more suitable than the US to take the moral high ground above Germany. Yet as an American Jew you carry a certain exemption, so you may carry on, and I will bow my head. And I mean that sincerely.
Re:Oh you good Americans, please allow us ur own p
on
FRG on W2K: No CoS
·
· Score: 2
> you would clearly understand that I am not flaming the German nation [...]
> get your own head out of your self-righteous German ass [...]
These two statements present somewhat of a semantic conflict. From reading most of your posts in this thread I can detect a definite anti-German sentiment simmering under the surface. Which is fine, but don't pretend otherwise when people call you on it.
I have tried hard to counter you on a point-by-point basis, but in retrospect that might have been pointless (:-) since you're stuck on your particular notion of replacing "Scientologist" with "Jew" even when given more plausible and factually backed alternatives.
> I never said the current German government is Nazi-like
Not verbatim, but you've implied it repeatedly with sledgehammer subtlety. Kind of like asking me again and again "hmm, I wonder, what if I slammed these scissors into your eyes? Not that I would, but what if?" After about the third such question I might put on my coke bottle glasses, just in case.
> I would never use software produced by a Nazi.
How would you know? The About... dialog doesn't have to sport smartly animated GIF swastikas, you know. You might have already been assimilated for all you know.
> But I don't want my government banning software based on WHO produced it without consideration of
> the software's content.
I guess that would be completely unlike the US government banning the export of encryption software, or its use by "rogue nations." But I guess your reply to that would also be that "[You] didn't say the US is blameless nor do [you] represent the US."
> I don't believe it makes sense to wage war against economic or commercial products with a
> tenuous link to the organization.... but maybe that's because I'm an American and I worship free trade.
Amen to that. You should cc: Fidel on that, he might send you a few boxes of Cubans for being such an advocate.
> It was just the wording of it all that disturbed me - is it appropriate, despite or
> because of past historical events, for a government to try to ban software or books or
> products because the member of a group that commits admittedly evil acts was involved in a
> company that produced them.
Don't they teach about McCarthyism at Harvard? It amused me that it fits your objections to the letter: goverment=US, books or products=movies and scripts, group=communist party, company=Hollywood. Selective memory is a dangerous thing.
No it wasn't, not particularly. You were persecuted for Jewish blood and Jewish ancestry, not for Jewish beliefs. If you were a true-blooded Aryan of Jewish belief, your could rescind your beliefs and live. If you were of Jewish ancestry, it didn't matter how agnostic or atheist you were, you couldn't disavow your genetic heritage. That was one of the points made by many Jews later on: if only they could have given up their faith and beliefs to save their lives, they would have. But they couldn't, because the Nazis despised not their ideas but who they were.
> I mentally replace "Scientologist" with "Jew" and I see something that could
> have happened 50 years ago [...]
Sure, or replace "Scientologist" with "National Socialist", which would be more in the spirit of what the German government is trying to achieve here. Had this been done in the 1920's the world might have never experienced the evil that was the Third Reich (and the US might have never been what they are now). Before you jump and reply that while the intention is noble it proves that Germany is lacking in free speech and democracy, replace "Germany" with "USA" and "Church of Scientology" with "Communist Party". That should clear up any misconceptions you might have about freedom of speech in your (and currently my) country.
> I am an Agnostic, and to me, all "religions" are the same and have no apparant use.
There is a big difference between a religion and a cult: you're usually born into a religion and it might mean nothing to you personally, even if your particular religion might have evil ulterior motives. You usually join a cult yourself because of personal convictions, not because your parents were members (most cults don't last long enough for inter-generational hand-off). So if you discriminate against a religion, you are including many individuals without strong convictions, but when you discriminate against a cult you are dealing with individuals strongly focused on a particular idea.
So even as a religious pragmatist I have to say that it is important to discriminate between religions and cults (pun fully intended).
> That is definitely a country that doesn't believe in freedom of speech.
> I'm glad I don't live there. Sheesh.
It's always good to get a laugh from the emotionally simple. I'm sure you're glad you live (most likely?) in the US, a country which certainly gives you all the necessary freedoms of speech so that you don't question the ones you don't get. While we could sit down and do a line item listing of freedoms of speech you DON'T enjoy in the US, whether legally or de facto, what would be the fun in that? Just go join your local Communist Party chapter instead.
Slashdot Mirror
> 140 Gig, in a couple of years? Only if you don't upgrade.
I don't follow the bleeding edge. Right now I'm still on an IBM 16GXP 16.8GB, and it's far from full. And the computer is a Celly 366 o/c'ed to 460 with 192MB RAM. I'm guessing my next drive will be in the 80-120GB category when it's time to upgrade.
Regarding backups, you're right, people don't do it much anymore. I certainly don't, mainly because it's such a hassle. Removable drives don't cut it, I don't have that kind of patience. Tape would work I suppose, but it's not important enough to me to spend $500 or so. I've been meaning to put a 486 machine with a 30GB drive on the network with some remote backup software to pull a copy of all important data from all machines at night, but that priority is pretty damn low.
Let's take it on good faith that this is not vaporware and will actually ship within the next 5 years--a fairly reasonable timeframe I think. That means that finally removable storage density has caught up with hard drives, and that it doesn't take 10-100 disks anymore to backup a modern HD.
This brings us to another important topic, data transfer rates. Most decent removable drives connect to IDE, SCSI, USB and parallel port. Forget the last two, they offer only convenience but no performance. Even with IDE and SCSI all current removable drives peak at way below their top rates. Let's assume a very optimistic 10MB/s (which is closer to HD transfer rates than removable drives) and do the math for a 140GB disk:
140GB * 1024MB/GB = 143,360MB
143,360MB / 10MB/s = 14,336s
14,336s / 3600s/h = ~3.98h
So it would take me about four hours to fill that disk with data. In a couple of years my main HD will be about that size, and it will take me 4h to do a full backup. For backups that might be somewhat tolerable, but these disks will be hawked as super floppies. Pop it in, drag that HDTV movie onto it, wait a couple of hours, remove it and run to your friend's house to play it. What's wrong with that scenario?
What I'm saying is that we're approaching storage densities where our current data transfer busses simply can't reasonably cope anymore. We really need gigabit level transfer rates, and media that can cope with that kind of read/write speed. I simply can't see sequential technology like HD and CD-ROM keeping up. We need either new materials that can write MUCH faster or new parallel access technologies that read/write multiple tracks at once. And the transfer technology that goes with that--maybe gigabit ethernet, 1.6Gb 1394 or who knows what.
if MS truly wanted to prove their interest in cross-platform functionality, they would have ported COM to as many platforms as possible AND pushed it hard on all those platforms (I know it was ported to some Unix, but who exactly is using it?). Instead, they used it as a Windows fragmentation tool to bury IE deep into the OS to the point of inextractability. COM as a cross-platform standard could have been a very useful tool. It seems to be considerably more lightweight than CORBA (haven't looked too much at CORBA though), and it's extremely popular on the number one desktop OS. If Linux had COM support, they might not have had to duplicate its functionality with KDE parts (if that's what it's called). It would have also allowed Linux to mesh more seamlessly into Windows networks, maybe as an MTS/Apache host. Of course, that would have boosted Linux popularity, so strike that.
.NET are quite compelling. COM lacks some of the crucial elements of OO (such as inheritance), which .NET addresses in a language-independent way. The idea of taking an off-the-shelf binary component, extending it (in potentially another langue) and creating a new component from it is very appealing. But the compromises this all entails might be too much to swallow for many people for quite some time. I'm still not sure how I feel about it myself yet, I'll let some time go by and see how things work out--not that I have a choice anyway.
The ideas behind
I believe IL stands for Intermediate Language, not Interpretive. MS vehemently oppose that .NET uses a VM, they push hard on the JIT angle. In fact, they've elevated it to a verb, JIT-ing.
.NET. If anything, they're going to get worse, because MS loves to push the Windows GUI to the extreme. Try porting the latest Office GUI to Linux. Good look.
Besides, any claims of future cross-platform availability of MS technolgies can be safely filed under "bullshit". It sounds good to say now, and might win some early converts, but once the smoke clears it will be Windows all the way. Witness Internet Explorer for Unix (mind you, not for Linux), the orphan child.
Another issue to keep in mind is that cross platform is easier said than done. This has been written about at great lengths after the Java smoke cleared and people were wondering why code isn't as portable as was promised. Most non-trivial apps--particularly UI-intesive ones--make use of a lot of platform-specific features that are not portable. That (and performance of Swing) is why Java is more popular in the non-GUI server world. Those issues are not suddenly going to go away with
Or, since it seems to be your computer, you could just go out and buy a $7 keyboard and be done with the troubles.
> well, its sitting here, unused. want it? ;-)
:-)
Sure, I'll have it. Mail me for details
A very small case like this with an intergrated power supply and a motherboard tailored to fit inside is perfect for a lot of custom devices. Such as an MP3 player, for example. Hook the audio up to you stereo, connect it to your network, whip up (or go find) some software with a nice UI that can pull MP3s off another host on the network, and you're set. Or put in your own HD and store the stuff there.
is actually the bigger problem. The French can't even keep basic . and , and : in the same place. I can deal with a few letters being in different places, but if you have to shift for . that's pretty damn stupid. Compared to that the German layout is almost benign: the Y and Z are swapped, but at least the punctuation cluster is the same.
The Crusoe chips in their current incarnations are simply x86 wannabees. They emphasise power thriftiness over performance. Therefore if Intel and AMD come out with equally power efficient chips, their advantage would be gone. Besides, as has been pointed out numerous times, the CPU is only one part in the power budget of a portable, and not even the largest one.
.NET architecture. Or develop a hybrid chip that can switch between x86 and PPC instruction sets dynamically, allowing you to run Windows and MacOS for example on the same machine at the same time. There are lots of issues that would make the latter pretty hard beside the CPU, but my point is to take advantage of your strengths to do something your competitors can't.
Transmeta should instead apply the code morphing technology in fields without ready competitors. Maybe something like a Java chip, or something fitting into Microsoft's
That's quite true. I guess I was thinking mainly of the inconvenience at the time of sickness. In fact, one should encourage the kids to eat dirt and lick the floors, because it only strengthens their immune system--unless they lap up some Ebola or something :-)
> the resentment that housewives have felt is not due to what they're doing, it's simply bcos they
:-) Just look at children growing up, girls are much more ofter called to task on household chores than boys.
> were pressured into it instead of taking it on voluntarily.
Absolutely, I can't disagree with that. I personally know career women that had children and chose to give up their careers for them, and that's what they wanted all their lives. It fulfills them being a parent.
But this is not true of all women, probably not even most. It's just that women in general are conditioned by society to be the giver and to demure, even if they have strong personalities. I look at my wife, normally a very strong and assertive person, and still around the house she's sort of silently picking up the slack. In most households women do considerably more work than men. If it were the other way around, most men would vehemently complain. I often recognize this about myself and hate myself for it and strive harder to change it. But a lifetime of conditioning is hard to counteract
I feel the argument for men staying home is as strong as the one for women staying home. It's a matter of personal aspirations and values.
My personal view is that society has degenerated into an environment very hostile for raising children. The whole workplace mechanics have evolved into a very strong separation of work and personal life. I feel that if companies provided an environment where children could spend the day in relative proximity to their parents, this could have a huge impact on the dynamics of the family. There are some progressive companies that have started to offer daycare for their employees with ready access for the parents to the kids throughout the day. This could work fairly well for large companies, blue or white collar factories.
As technology evolves and telecommuting becomes more mainstream, I can see a future where companies decentralize themselves into satellite offices with more informal work environments and integrated child care facilities. This could bring us somewhat back to that idyllic past of the village raising the children. Of course, the ideal would be for both parents to work at the same facility to provide equal access, but this involves personal choices in partner selection and goes beyond what an employer can do.
"its" and "it's", and "then" and "than", and "and" and "end". Ok, strike the last one.
I'm working for them again since September, as a contractor. The offer was too good to pass up, and since I'm not planning on sticking around forever, contracting is fine. In Chattanooga certainly we have loads of contractors. It seems in my building there are more red-badgers than blue ones.
From age 3 on I went regularly to kindergarten until school. That was a very enjoyable time and provided me with interaction opportunities my mother at home couldn't have given me.
My two-year-old twins (boy and girl) started going to daycare at age two. Being twins has definitely helped their personal development (the girl is by far the dominant one, as in most cases it seems). However, since they went to daycare, the boy has really flourished and developed at a much faster pace than before. While there are downsides to daycare (such as more frequent sickness), overall it's a definite advantage. Studies show time and again that kids who went to daycare and kindergarten later on socialize much more successfully.
> Then you have no business having children.
And you have no business telling me what my business is. Classic catch-22.
> I'll take my wife over any of those, any day.
Trouble is, she says the same thing about me. What--other than gender stereotypes--says that she should stay at home? She enjoys her career as much as I enjoy mine. And I enjoy mine way too much to give it up and stay home with kids.
The funny thing is that the stay-at-home-mom approach is most often offered up by people who have never spent any serious amount of time caring for young children and have very bizzare notions of the fulfilment that would bring. Dig deeper with many full time house wives and you will find layers upon layers of resentment and dissatisfaction. However, too many of them have been conditioned into accepting this as the norm, so they would feel like a bad parent if they ever admitted these feelings. There have been plenty of studies on this, it's nothing new.
This model worked for most of history because in most civilizations the female played a sacrificial role. She was not the equal of the male, so most avenues of self-fulfillment were closed to her. Besides, females have breasts, which are for feeding children, right? What better proof that they are meant to be the caretakers?
If you work for the Federal Government you're much more likely to be a contractor than an actual employee. I've worked twice for the TVA, both times as a contractor. Federal agencies are under constant pressure to appear to be reducing head count, so they often shift work to contracting agencies because those moneys come from different funds. But as a contractor you probably won't see any of these raises talked about here.
> So my point is the "stuff" isn't coming from "the US". I am not "the US". I am an
> individual who sees unfortunate things come out both the US and Germany.
I can see your lips move, but they don't match your words. Trouble is, when it suits your moral mood you ride high on American righteousness and mention many of America's perceived virtues as your very own moral code. When the shit hits the fan, you leave the room. You've got to take the good with the bad, buddy.
Nobody is denying Germany's legacy with its Jewish members, least of all those of us of German extraction or nationality. It treated some of its most productive citizens the worst, and in the process made America what it is today. Still, as an American I would be careful to point a finger too long at Germany, since over the course of its history the US have easily committed atrocities on the same level. Germany just compressed them into twelve years. There are other countries (and their citizens) more suitable than the US to take the moral high ground above Germany. Yet as an American Jew you carry a certain exemption, so you may carry on, and I will bow my head. And I mean that sincerely.
> you would clearly understand that I am not flaming the German nation [...]
> get your own head out of your self-righteous German ass [...]
These two statements present somewhat of a semantic conflict. From reading most of your posts in this thread I can detect a definite anti-German sentiment simmering under the surface. Which is fine, but don't pretend otherwise when people call you on it.
I have tried hard to counter you on a point-by-point basis, but in retrospect that might have been pointless (:-) since you're stuck on your particular notion of replacing "Scientologist" with "Jew" even when given more plausible and factually backed alternatives.
> I never said the current German government is Nazi-like
Not verbatim, but you've implied it repeatedly with sledgehammer subtlety. Kind of like asking me again and again "hmm, I wonder, what if I slammed these scissors into your eyes? Not that I would, but what if?" After about the third such question I might put on my coke bottle glasses, just in case.
> I would never use software produced by a Nazi.
How would you know? The About... dialog doesn't have to sport smartly animated GIF swastikas, you know. You might have already been assimilated for all you know.
> But I don't want my government banning software based on WHO produced it without consideration of
> the software's content.
I guess that would be completely unlike the US government banning the export of encryption software, or its use by "rogue nations." But I guess your reply to that would also be that "[You] didn't say the US is blameless nor do [you] represent the US."
> I don't believe it makes sense to wage war against economic or commercial products with a
> tenuous link to the organization.... but maybe that's because I'm an American and I worship free trade.
Amen to that. You should cc: Fidel on that, he might send you a few boxes of Cubans for being such an advocate.
> It was just the wording of it all that disturbed me - is it appropriate, despite or
> because of past historical events, for a government to try to ban software or books or
> products because the member of a group that commits admittedly evil acts was involved in a
> company that produced them.
Don't they teach about McCarthyism at Harvard? It amused me that it fits your objections to the letter: goverment=US, books or products=movies and scripts, group=communist party, company=Hollywood. Selective memory is a dangerous thing.
> So was Judaism. Your point?
No it wasn't, not particularly. You were persecuted for Jewish blood and Jewish ancestry, not for Jewish beliefs. If you were a true-blooded Aryan of Jewish belief, your could rescind your beliefs and live. If you were of Jewish ancestry, it didn't matter how agnostic or atheist you were, you couldn't disavow your genetic heritage. That was one of the points made by many Jews later on: if only they could have given up their faith and beliefs to save their lives, they would have. But they couldn't, because the Nazis despised not their ideas but who they were.
> I mentally replace "Scientologist" with "Jew" and I see something that could
> have happened 50 years ago [...]
Sure, or replace "Scientologist" with "National Socialist", which would be more in the spirit of what the German government is trying to achieve here. Had this been done in the 1920's the world might have never experienced the evil that was the Third Reich (and the US might have never been what they are now). Before you jump and reply that while the intention is noble it proves that Germany is lacking in free speech and democracy, replace "Germany" with "USA" and "Church of Scientology" with "Communist Party". That should clear up any misconceptions you might have about freedom of speech in your (and currently my) country.
> I am an Agnostic, and to me, all "religions" are the same and have no apparant use.
There is a big difference between a religion and a cult: you're usually born into a religion and it might mean nothing to you personally, even if your particular religion might have evil ulterior motives. You usually join a cult yourself because of personal convictions, not because your parents were members (most cults don't last long enough for inter-generational hand-off). So if you discriminate against a religion, you are including many individuals without strong convictions, but when you discriminate against a cult you are dealing with individuals strongly focused on a particular idea.
So even as a religious pragmatist I have to say that it is important to discriminate between religions and cults (pun fully intended).
> That is definitely a country that doesn't believe in freedom of speech.
> I'm glad I don't live there. Sheesh.
It's always good to get a laugh from the emotionally simple. I'm sure you're glad you live (most likely?) in the US, a country which certainly gives you all the necessary freedoms of speech so that you don't question the ones you don't get. While we could sit down and do a line item listing of freedoms of speech you DON'T enjoy in the US, whether legally or de facto, what would be the fun in that? Just go join your local Communist Party chapter instead.