Thats not true at all. X86-64 allows for virtual 386 processors just as the 386 allows for virtual 8086 processors. You will be able to run non-emulated virtual machines very easily on the Athlon64. You could theoretically run multiple versions of Linux simultaneously on the same machine.
At the very least, more memory will be available for 32-bit applications, as the OS will be able to give a single application the whole available block.
This is all no different than running DOS apps on OS/2 back in the day. THe average DOS user had to work at keeping the minimum amount of memory available, but with OS/2 each DOS session had the full 640K available, I was able to run 3 DOS sessions with BBS software running simultaneously without any trouble whatsover.
The point is this if you want to run different operating systems concurrently, this will be great. It will perform much faster than VMWare or VirtualPC. If you run apps which need a lot of memory, and they are 32-bit, you will instantly benefit by using a 64-bit processor.
The real benefit of a 64-bit processor is not just the processing power, but the available memory. This was of course, the main benefit of the 386 for at minimum 10 years. And thats only if you consider Windows 95 to be a 32-bit OS.
I would pay $80 a month for 768K SDSL. As it is, my only realistic choice is 1.5Mb down, and 128Kb up for $40. I could upgrade to 1.5MB down and 256Kb up, but that would about $75 a month. After that, they only offer fractional T1 service.
The median income in the US is $36,000. Lets say you have traditional views about life and you want your wife to raise your children instead of the daycare center and you want to have 3 children so that you add to the population thus reducing the nation's reliance on foreign immigration.
It is going to be pretty damn difficult to raise a family on that kind of salary. In the New York Metro area you could barely even afford a 1 bedroom apartment let alone a house. A 1 bedroom apartment in a shithole like Bridgeport, CT is going to cost you $700-$800 a month at minimum. Before someone comments on that, landlords require your annual gross income to be at least 40x the monthly rent, frequently up to 52x the montly rent.
Also, I would love for you to pull some stats out of your ass about mom and pop businesses. I don't really know where these businesses are to be honest. The only ones I see are bodegas. I would hardly call that a backbone of the economy.
Its worse when you go to rural areas. There are some towns in rural America which are nothing more than a walmart and fast food restaurants.
Anyway, materialism doesn't necessarily lead to religious fundamentalism. Materialism is simply nihilism. It leads to people grasping for some meaning to their wretched existence. A talented orator can easily exploit such people. Anything is better than a meaningless life.
Oswald Mosley had a lot of great ideas regarding this very subject.
The day will come with the Capitalist and Communists both will perish. Economics is NOT the driving force behind human existence and civilization. Human civilization USES economics to achieve its own goals. Mosley was one of many to fight the materialist powers.
It is pretty much impossible to prove non-existence. (Actually the rule is you cannot prove an unrestricted negative, north america IS very large... so it almost qualifies) This is why a cardinal rule of rationalism is to assume that something doesn't exist until proven otherwise.
This is the same logic applied to God. No one can disprove the existence of God. There may be a God somewhere, someplace. In fact, there may be Santa Claus hanging out in the North Pole. Do you have video cameras setup everywhere? It could be...
And even more amazingly, some Carl Sagan fans are predisposed to the believe they are all wise and knowing.
I won't comment on all your statements here as I would no doubt get flamed, but it is nothing new to suggest democracy is a flawed governmental system. Would you call Plato's Republic "kooky" because it makes the very same claim? Ahh yes, I should trust Carl Sagan, and completely ignore one of the greatest minds to have lived in the last 2500 years. Irrespective of your personal views on the merits of democracy, many MANY brilliant people have noted democracy's flaws. They are in fact the same flaws we deal with today.
Further, the evidence is pretty damn simple. You produce a native North American non-human primate, dead or alive, and the case is closed.
Your post is incredibly stupid for two reasons. First, it doesn't require a doctorate degree to prove the existence of anything. Either it does or it doesn't. Further, in identifying a new species, forensic inference is not sufficient. And interviews? wtf???
But you have to admit, it would be a lot of fun to go to the symposium to see the people there. Maybe bigfoot is fake, but the symposium would be a blast!
There are different explanations, but the most thorough as I recall was in the Star Trek:TNG Technical Manual. It is a logarithmic increase. Warp 10 is supposed to be unatainable as you would occupy all points in space simultaneously. But suffice it to say, I recall it saying something like Warp 9.999999 was 10,000 times faster than Warp 1 or whatever. Granted, I last looked at this book like 12 years ago when I was ummm.. 12. Wow. Half my life.
Not only that, the word prosecution applies to criminal cases, not civil disputes. The state prosecutes offenders for breaking laws created by legislatures. That is not what is happening with the SCO case.
But ridiculous legal claims are nothing new on slashdot.
Listen Buttafucco, I didn't bring up the orderliness question here. Some parent poster was discussing how amazing it was the drummer in some rock band could keep time. hHis is evidence of the cultural dichotomy I am discussing. No one involved with classical music would ever make such a compliment because it is a necessity to keep time otherwise the ensemble falls apart.
It is VERY easy to keep a group together when it is small, especially when there is only one lead to which the others follow. It is also easy when the group keeps some sort of jazz system of alternating solos. A small group following a soloist means nothing.
As far as rock music not being all impulsive, how about this. One of the great uses of classical music has been for military marches, the supreme example of orderliness. You name any piece of music you wish which you identify as rock music which you believe can accompany a military march, and I will listen to it.
In fact, military marches are a great example of what I am talking about. It is easy to get three or four people to march in step. But try ten, fifty, a hundred, a thousand. The story changes. Music is no different.
It's fine if you don't enjoy rock music, but don't extend that personal preference to dogmatic principles.
Also, spare me the relativist bullshit about dogmatic principles. Every human action means something. Rock music a cultural manifestation of relativism, pervasive in the post war world. It is actually anti-culture. Only when a group agrees on goals and aspirations can it succeed. Our fucked up world is evidence enough that when every prick has his own "personal preferences" nothing gets done. Your own statement, suggesting that relativism should be applied to classical music, is a prime example of how you cannot see outside of the post-modern world in which you live.
The greatest classical music is from an age where personal preferences did not exist, where people were united, and in that unity came some of the greatest of human achievements. Today, we are a wretched amalgamation of cosmopolitan fashion slaves. There is no greatness in our music, because our people are not inclined to great things. Instead, they condemn principles. They condemn ideals. They write off deviant behavior as just another valid personal preference.
Look around you and see your culture of uniform housing, fast food restaurants, wal-mart, MTV. This is what happens when people do not believe in standards for a society. You end up with the lowest common deonominator, which is crap. Our world is dying slowly, decaying every day. Music is just a part of it.
Didn't Alpha Romeo exit the North American market?I checked their webiste and I didn't see it listed. Hopefully they will come back along with peugeot and renault.
Rock music by its very definition is limited to a small ensemble, in 99% of cases a guitarist, drummer, and bassist. Rock music also is called such because it well, rocks. For the post-war generation, this is fealt as some sort of impulsivity. THe squares of prior geneartions valued conformity, planning, and orderliness. Rock music was a historical expression against these fascist tendencies. It is by its very nature impulsive. The reason the masses do not listen to Bach is you don't get the same rush. Rock music is as impulsive as when you are thrusting a chick, completely full of energy. Classical music is an intellectual exercise. It is not inspirational in an animalistic way, it excites the mind and cannot be enjoyed from any other vantage point.
As another poster pointed out Kraftwerk is NOT rock music. The music is a natural progression of western music. 100 years from now, Kraftwerk will be remembered as being far more influential than the beatles.
Also, I am not referring to whether or not the music keeps a 4/4 beat. The order I am talking about is also artistic. No matter how precise rock music is, it still attempts to convey certain feelings in the listener which are not orderly. It is always disjointed and superficially impulsive. That is really what describes rock music most, impulsive. It may not be that way anymore, but it still strives to express it.
Also, it is very difficult to describe music performed by 3 or 4 musicians as orderly. Part of the reason classical music IS orderly is there are so many musicians. As I was saying, its nothing special that such a small group can play together, especially with a drummer/human metronome. Yes larger orchestras have a conductor but it is very different, trust me.
You know, I am always amazed how keeping time is a big deal for rock musicians and their fans. I admit I am biased as I am classical violinist. Keeping time is a NECESSITY in an orchestra. 100 people cannot play together if they cannot count. In fact, the only compliment you can really give to a percussionist in most music is that they keep good time.
One of the reasons I despise rock music it is lacks precision and order, in many ways it is the perfect music for a decadent and nihilistic culture; a perfect representation of the post-war world.
Also, listening to music 30/40 years later is an indicator of quality? If people are listening to that crap in 100 years you might make a case for yourself. 200 years? Its a done deal. I can absolutely guarantee you in 200 years, only cultural historians will have heard of the Beatles.
Re:kraftwerk was more influential in the long run
on
Beatles Bite Apple
·
· Score: 1
I think in 100 or 200 years, what we call rock music will be ignored. There is nothing technically great about it. It will be remember as being basically culturally empty, like everything else to come of the post-WWII era. It will be up there with ranch houses, television, annual fashion fads... Kraftwerk is great and all, but to me they were simply adopting classical music techniques to modern instruments.
For the record, their "experimental" work doesn't quite interest me either. Going to Goa and getting stoned, then deciding you like eastern scales and rhythm is not experimental. Its stealing.
I also don't value experimentation too much. In all honesty, the way the Beatles changed their style was a big harbinger of future music fads to come. Today, EVERYONE experiments, musicians no longer want to make great music, they want to be different.
But I agree with your sentiments. Thanks for sharing them.
If true, all they will do is spin the service off into a shell corporation... I think the iPod and iTunes marketing terms have become so well known, they can push the product without using the Apple name.
I hope so too. The Beatles suck, musically and ethically. They were one of the first modern pop bands and with their crap music came a serious push for bunk intellectual property rights.
When did ATI have these crappy chips and shocking driver support?
They had some trouble there with the Rage 128 and original Radeon, but things weren't always that way. I still remember getting my Mach 64 Graphics Pro Turbo with 4 megs of VRAM back in 1996... It was the best card with the best driver support.
I still look back on the original ATI's as the best driver support ever, and it had built in 8514/A emulation so that IF there wasn't a driver available for your old operating system you at least had 1024x768 with 256 colors. I dunno, its only been five years of 3D graphics, and ATI was on top only 3 of those years, from 1999-2002. Whats the big deal?
Also, you have your facts mixed up about color depth. ATI and nvidia are the same at lower resolutions and lower color depths. nvidia cards today are always slower when run at 1600x1200@32bit color when compared to ATI. In fact, ATI cards perform slower at 16-bit color when run at high resolution...
Wow, that is quite a few insults in a such a short post...
Re:You have no idea what you are talking about.
on
Back To SCO
·
· Score: 1
Actually, Joseph Goebbels never lied, at least about things which are not based on opinion. As far as the events of WWII, he was actually entirely honest.
First of all, lets remember the term "Nazi" was a British propaganda tool. The German People nor the members of the National Socialist Party referred to themselves as such. Just by using it, you acknowledge propaganda has value.
The big lie was first discussed by Hitler in Mein Kampf in reference to one of the reasons Germany lost WWI. Great Britain was the first country to use propaganda, and they became masters of it during WWI. Many would argue it became necessary after the disaster of the Boer War where hundreds of thousands of German settlers in Zimbabwe and South Africa were killed in concentration camps. Some serious anti-british sentiment was being spread around due to this event, and Propaganda was born in Britain.
During WWI, the trend continued. The Germans didn't use ANY propaganda. At most, newspapers would have cartoons of British soldiers acting like buffoons. The British published MANY releases on how evil and barbaric the Germans were. Hitler was simply pointing out that it makes sense for a government to realize active persuasion is NECEASSRY and if your enemy uses it, you will have a problem. Goebbels usually discussed Britain's more ridiculous lies. Today, we all thing of Nazis rounding up Jews and what not. That had NOTHING to do with the war however, and the British never made a case for the war on those grounds. Their argument was that Germany must be stopped because they were trying to take over the world. It doesn't matter Germany lacked the means to do so, and publically announced this to the world. It doesn't matter they had no interest in taking over the world. What does matter however is Great Britain controlled 2/3 of the world in 1939. It was extreme hypocricy to suggest the British had a any more right to the world as Germany.
On a side note, after the fall of France in 1940, France was allowed to keep her colonies, and the soldiers abroad were left to defend them. They never invaded her colonies. It probably would have been a great help to have done so, at least in Algeria but it didn't happen.
That same site has many speeches by him as well. Try and dig up a lie there if you like.
Lets not forget the worst of the British lies. Only about 60,000 British died in during German bombing raids, the vast majority of which were directed towards military targets. Terror bombing was used, with the V-2 and such, but more to induce capitulation and not slaughter civilians. The British on the other hand destroyed whole cities, hundreds of thousands would die in a matter of days. Compare that treatment to the French... Their civilian casualties were in the hundreds. In the end, over 1.5 million German civilians would die. So much for the Geneva Convention.
Germany had the means to obliterate London from the face of the earth in 1940, but did not. What if the entire population had been gassed to death? Is there any chance Britain would have continued on? No. But as Goebbels and Hitler both said, their goal was to SAVE europe from nihilistic materialism which internationalism was foisting upon the world. They obviously failed in that regard, but that had no intention of destroying Europe.
Whatever else Goebbels and Hitler did, they did not lie to the world about their goals and aspirations. That is a British trait.
Slashdot Mirror
Thats not true at all. X86-64 allows for virtual 386 processors just as the 386 allows for virtual 8086 processors. You will be able to run non-emulated virtual machines very easily on the Athlon64. You could theoretically run multiple versions of Linux simultaneously on the same machine.
At the very least, more memory will be available for 32-bit applications, as the OS will be able to give a single application the whole available block.
This is all no different than running DOS apps on OS/2 back in the day. THe average DOS user had to work at keeping the minimum amount of memory available, but with OS/2 each DOS session had the full 640K available, I was able to run 3 DOS sessions with BBS software running simultaneously without any trouble whatsover.
The point is this if you want to run different operating systems concurrently, this will be great. It will perform much faster than VMWare or VirtualPC. If you run apps which need a lot of memory, and they are 32-bit, you will instantly benefit by using a 64-bit processor.
The real benefit of a 64-bit processor is not just the processing power, but the available memory. This was of course, the main benefit of the 386 for at minimum 10 years. And thats only if you consider Windows 95 to be a 32-bit OS.
I am pretty sure 3D rendering is not going to benefit from additional cache too much though.
This has to be the most incoherent statement I have ever read.
Man you better have been drunk.
I would pay $80 a month for 768K SDSL. As it is, my only realistic choice is 1.5Mb down, and 128Kb up for $40. I could upgrade to 1.5MB down and 256Kb up, but that would about $75 a month. After that, they only offer fractional T1 service.
This is rather ridiculous.
The median income in the US is $36,000. Lets say you have traditional views about life and you want your wife to raise your children instead of the daycare center and you want to have 3 children so that you add to the population thus reducing the nation's reliance on foreign immigration.
It is going to be pretty damn difficult to raise a family on that kind of salary. In the New York Metro area you could barely even afford a 1 bedroom apartment let alone a house. A 1 bedroom apartment in a shithole like Bridgeport, CT is going to cost you $700-$800 a month at minimum. Before someone comments on that, landlords require your annual gross income to be at least 40x the monthly rent, frequently up to 52x the montly rent.
Also, I would love for you to pull some stats out of your ass about mom and pop businesses. I don't really know where these businesses are to be honest. The only ones I see are bodegas. I would hardly call that a backbone of the economy.
Its worse when you go to rural areas. There are some towns in rural America which are nothing more than a walmart and fast food restaurants.
Anyway, materialism doesn't necessarily lead to religious fundamentalism. Materialism is simply nihilism. It leads to people grasping for some meaning to their wretched existence. A talented orator can easily exploit such people. Anything is better than a meaningless life.
Oswald Mosley had a lot of great ideas regarding this very subject.
The day will come with the Capitalist and Communists both will perish. Economics is NOT the driving force behind human existence and civilization. Human civilization USES economics to achieve its own goals. Mosley was one of many to fight the materialist powers.
It is pretty much impossible to prove non-existence. (Actually the rule is you cannot prove an unrestricted negative, north america IS very large... so it almost qualifies) This is why a cardinal rule of rationalism is to assume that something doesn't exist until proven otherwise.
This is the same logic applied to God. No one can disprove the existence of God. There may be a God somewhere, someplace. In fact, there may be Santa Claus hanging out in the North Pole. Do you have video cameras setup everywhere? It could be...
And even more amazingly, some Carl Sagan fans are predisposed to the believe they are all wise and knowing.
I won't comment on all your statements here as I would no doubt get flamed, but it is nothing new to suggest democracy is a flawed governmental system. Would you call Plato's Republic "kooky" because it makes the very same claim? Ahh yes, I should trust Carl Sagan, and completely ignore one of the greatest minds to have lived in the last 2500 years. Irrespective of your personal views on the merits of democracy, many MANY brilliant people have noted democracy's flaws. They are in fact the same flaws we deal with today.
Anyway... be kooky!
I think in this case it is the lack of evidence.
Further, the evidence is pretty damn simple. You produce a native North American non-human primate, dead or alive, and the case is closed.
Your post is incredibly stupid for two reasons. First, it doesn't require a doctorate degree to prove the existence of anything. Either it does or it doesn't. Further, in identifying a new species, forensic inference is not sufficient. And interviews? wtf???
Cheers!
But you have to admit, it would be a lot of fun to go to the symposium to see the people there. Maybe bigfoot is fake, but the symposium would be a blast!
There are different explanations, but the most thorough as I recall was in the Star Trek:TNG Technical Manual. It is a logarithmic increase. Warp 10 is supposed to be unatainable as you would occupy all points in space simultaneously. But suffice it to say, I recall it saying something like Warp 9.999999 was 10,000 times faster than Warp 1 or whatever. Granted, I last looked at this book like 12 years ago when I was ummm.. 12. Wow. Half my life.
Not only that, the word prosecution applies to criminal cases, not civil disputes. The state prosecutes offenders for breaking laws created by legislatures. That is not what is happening with the SCO case.
But ridiculous legal claims are nothing new on slashdot.
Listen Buttafucco, I didn't bring up the orderliness question here. Some parent poster was discussing how amazing it was the drummer in some rock band could keep time. hHis is evidence of the cultural dichotomy I am discussing. No one involved with classical music would ever make such a compliment because it is a necessity to keep time otherwise the ensemble falls apart.
It is VERY easy to keep a group together when it is small, especially when there is only one lead to which the others follow. It is also easy when the group keeps some sort of jazz system of alternating solos. A small group following a soloist means nothing.
As far as rock music not being all impulsive, how about this. One of the great uses of classical music has been for military marches, the supreme example of orderliness. You name any piece of music you wish which you identify as rock music which you believe can accompany a military march, and I will listen to it.
In fact, military marches are a great example of what I am talking about. It is easy to get three or four people to march in step. But try ten, fifty, a hundred, a thousand. The story changes. Music is no different.
It's fine if you don't enjoy rock music, but don't extend that personal preference to dogmatic principles.
Also, spare me the relativist bullshit about dogmatic principles. Every human action means something. Rock music a cultural manifestation of relativism, pervasive in the post war world. It is actually anti-culture. Only when a group agrees on goals and aspirations can it succeed. Our fucked up world is evidence enough that when every prick has his own "personal preferences" nothing gets done. Your own statement, suggesting that relativism should be applied to classical music, is a prime example of how you cannot see outside of the post-modern world in which you live.
The greatest classical music is from an age where personal preferences did not exist, where people were united, and in that unity came some of the greatest of human achievements. Today, we are a wretched amalgamation of cosmopolitan fashion slaves. There is no greatness in our music, because our people are not inclined to great things. Instead, they condemn principles. They condemn ideals. They write off deviant behavior as just another valid personal preference.
Look around you and see your culture of uniform housing, fast food restaurants, wal-mart, MTV. This is what happens when people do not believe in standards for a society. You end up with the lowest common deonominator, which is crap. Our world is dying slowly, decaying every day. Music is just a part of it.
Didn't Alpha Romeo exit the North American market?I checked their webiste and I didn't see it listed. Hopefully they will come back along with peugeot and renault.
I think not.
Rock music by its very definition is limited to a small ensemble, in 99% of cases a guitarist, drummer, and bassist. Rock music also is called such because it well, rocks. For the post-war generation, this is fealt as some sort of impulsivity. THe squares of prior geneartions valued conformity, planning, and orderliness. Rock music was a historical expression against these fascist tendencies. It is by its very nature impulsive. The reason the masses do not listen to Bach is you don't get the same rush. Rock music is as impulsive as when you are thrusting a chick, completely full of energy. Classical music is an intellectual exercise. It is not inspirational in an animalistic way, it excites the mind and cannot be enjoyed from any other vantage point.
Read another post of mine in this thread.
As another poster pointed out Kraftwerk is NOT rock music. The music is a natural progression of western music. 100 years from now, Kraftwerk will be remembered as being far more influential than the beatles.
Also, I am not referring to whether or not the music keeps a 4/4 beat. The order I am talking about is also artistic. No matter how precise rock music is, it still attempts to convey certain feelings in the listener which are not orderly. It is always disjointed and superficially impulsive. That is really what describes rock music most, impulsive. It may not be that way anymore, but it still strives to express it.
Also, it is very difficult to describe music performed by 3 or 4 musicians as orderly. Part of the reason classical music IS orderly is there are so many musicians. As I was saying, its nothing special that such a small group can play together, especially with a drummer/human metronome. Yes larger orchestras have a conductor but it is very different, trust me.
You know, I am always amazed how keeping time is a big deal for rock musicians and their fans. I admit I am biased as I am classical violinist. Keeping time is a NECESSITY in an orchestra. 100 people cannot play together if they cannot count. In fact, the only compliment you can really give to a percussionist in most music is that they keep good time.
One of the reasons I despise rock music it is lacks precision and order, in many ways it is the perfect music for a decadent and nihilistic culture; a perfect representation of the post-war world.
Also, listening to music 30/40 years later is an indicator of quality? If people are listening to that crap in 100 years you might make a case for yourself. 200 years? Its a done deal. I can absolutely guarantee you in 200 years, only cultural historians will have heard of the Beatles.
I think in 100 or 200 years, what we call rock music will be ignored. There is nothing technically great about it. It will be remember as being basically culturally empty, like everything else to come of the post-WWII era. It will be up there with ranch houses, television, annual fashion fads... Kraftwerk is great and all, but to me they were simply adopting classical music techniques to modern instruments.
For the record, their "experimental" work doesn't quite interest me either. Going to Goa and getting stoned, then deciding you like eastern scales and rhythm is not experimental. Its stealing.
I also don't value experimentation too much. In all honesty, the way the Beatles changed their style was a big harbinger of future music fads to come. Today, EVERYONE experiments, musicians no longer want to make great music, they want to be different.
But I agree with your sentiments. Thanks for sharing them.
If true, all they will do is spin the service off into a shell corporation... I think the iPod and iTunes marketing terms have become so well known, they can push the product without using the Apple name.
I hope so too. The Beatles suck, musically and ethically. They were one of the first modern pop bands and with their crap music came a serious push for bunk intellectual property rights.
I am sure it does, but you will definitely get trouble with it sometimes.
where did you get the roms???
When did ATI have these crappy chips and shocking driver support?
They had some trouble there with the Rage 128 and original Radeon, but things weren't always that way. I still remember getting my Mach 64 Graphics Pro Turbo with 4 megs of VRAM back in 1996... It was the best card with the best driver support.
I still look back on the original ATI's as the best driver support ever, and it had built in 8514/A emulation so that IF there wasn't a driver available for your old operating system you at least had 1024x768 with 256 colors. I dunno, its only been five years of 3D graphics, and ATI was on top only 3 of those years, from 1999-2002. Whats the big deal?
Also, you have your facts mixed up about color depth. ATI and nvidia are the same at lower resolutions and lower color depths. nvidia cards today are always slower when run at 1600x1200@32bit color when compared to ATI. In fact, ATI cards perform slower at 16-bit color when run at high resolution...
Wow, that is quite a few insults in a such a short post...
Actually, Joseph Goebbels never lied, at least about things which are not based on opinion. As far as the events of WWII, he was actually entirely honest.
First of all, lets remember the term "Nazi" was a British propaganda tool. The German People nor the members of the National Socialist Party referred to themselves as such. Just by using it, you acknowledge propaganda has value.
The big lie was first discussed by Hitler in Mein Kampf in reference to one of the reasons Germany lost WWI. Great Britain was the first country to use propaganda, and they became masters of it during WWI. Many would argue it became necessary after the disaster of the Boer War where hundreds of thousands of German settlers in Zimbabwe and South Africa were killed in concentration camps. Some serious anti-british sentiment was being spread around due to this event, and Propaganda was born in Britain.
During WWI, the trend continued. The Germans didn't use ANY propaganda. At most, newspapers would have cartoons of British soldiers acting like buffoons. The British published MANY releases on how evil and barbaric the Germans were. Hitler was simply pointing out that it makes sense for a government to realize active persuasion is NECEASSRY and if your enemy uses it, you will have a problem. Goebbels usually discussed Britain's more ridiculous lies. Today, we all thing of Nazis rounding up Jews and what not. That had NOTHING to do with the war however, and the British never made a case for the war on those grounds. Their argument was that Germany must be stopped because they were trying to take over the world. It doesn't matter Germany lacked the means to do so, and publically announced this to the world. It doesn't matter they had no interest in taking over the world. What does matter however is Great Britain controlled 2/3 of the world in 1939. It was extreme hypocricy to suggest the British had a any more right to the world as Germany.
On a side note, after the fall of France in 1940, France was allowed to keep her colonies, and the soldiers abroad were left to defend them. They never invaded her colonies. It probably would have been a great help to have done so, at least in Algeria but it didn't happen.
Here is a speech by Goebbels on this very topic.
That same site has many speeches by him as well. Try and dig up a lie there if you like.
Lets not forget the worst of the British lies. Only about 60,000 British died in during German bombing raids, the vast majority of which were directed towards military targets. Terror bombing was used, with the V-2 and such, but more to induce capitulation and not slaughter civilians. The British on the other hand destroyed whole cities, hundreds of thousands would die in a matter of days. Compare that treatment to the French... Their civilian casualties were in the hundreds. In the end, over 1.5 million German civilians would die. So much for the Geneva Convention.
Germany had the means to obliterate London from the face of the earth in 1940, but did not. What if the entire population had been gassed to death? Is there any chance Britain would have continued on? No. But as Goebbels and Hitler both said, their goal was to SAVE europe from nihilistic materialism which internationalism was foisting upon the world. They obviously failed in that regard, but that had no intention of destroying Europe.
Whatever else Goebbels and Hitler did, they did not lie to the world about their goals and aspirations. That is a British trait.