I am no fan of the GPL but you are completely wrong and the GPL stands on solid footing on this issue. The independent excemption in the GPL applies if the works "can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves" Just because something links to the kernel doesn't mean it is a derivative work, because the code could be "reasonably considered independent." You could compile the code for a different (POSIX compliant) kernel. In the case of kernel modules you are simply utilizing a service (no different from a TCP/IP request to Appache) of the GPL'd application, not creating a derivative work. In this particular case, Vidomi's work is clearly derivative and an extension of the GPL'd work. Their intent of the DLLs was to circumvent the GPL. They will lose if this ever gets to court.
These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.
What idiots. Clearly if you write non-derived modules and distribute them individually, such pieces are not under the GPL. Once you package it all up for distribution everything falls under the GPL. What an idiot. Time to get an attorney people or fork over the code!
I would say that languages have been sucessful that have proprietary control: VisualBasic, Java, Delphi. Microsoft hopes C# will also be successful. However, what makes a language successful has nothing to do with who controls it, but with its effectiveness. C++ for example has been bogged down in standards committees for years, and yet clearly established itself due to its incredible effectiveness and inter-compatibility with C. Java failed to become to the new defacto platform for GUI but, landed a home run with net service applications. VB is just a quick way to do Windows GUI work, but its a horrible language by anyone's admission. I don't think Perl's more open approach to design has much of an effect on the user base. Perl's success is due more in part to its natural ability as a workhorse. Python's sudden rise to the scene is a credit to its natural form and cross-platform glue, not its open source.
For that matter, I don't use Linux because it's open source. I use Linux because its a damn good OS and extremely cost effective. Open Source projects do not garauntee a project will be successful. It is simply an alternative model of development.
First of all, Windows is a huge Operating System compared to most Unix featuresets. To make matters considerabley more complicated, POSIX is a well-defined, clean standard in all respects. Making a POSIX implementation unix clone is a fairly straightforward operation with well documented and defined goals, limitations and requirements. The win32 API is enourmously deverse in form, structure and compatibility. Much of it harkens back to win16 (HGBLOBALs, HDROP etc). Much of the API is a complete departure from the traditional C-like win32 API (OLE). So the question becomes what is fully implemented? There are things that Solaris has that Linux doesnt. So is linux not fully implemented? Wine is pretty close on Win32. As close as you can get. They just need to work out the bugs.
If you could encace one of the participants with boxes running snoot, you'd could eventually figure this thing out. Sounds like security through obscurity which we all know doesnt really work, especially if you're the CIA.
First of all, Ximian, a great linux desktop, takes about an hour to set up, not 4 days. It takes you 3-4 days to set up a windows client? What the heck are you putting on there that takes that long? What does the hard drive have like a 10rpm governor on it or something?
Linux has never been a candidate to replace Office+Windows. We all speculate and hope, but the reality is that aint going to happen in at least the next 4 years if ever. However, the Linux desktop will live on in the many other market applications other than Office. How about, Developement, IT management console, Fortune500 Enterprize Appliances (cash registers, airline reservation desktops, other one-offs), etc. Imagine how many linux workstations companies like Verizon, HP, IBM, Motorola, etc have to have for their various development enterprizes. The Linux Desktop is NOT dead. The Linux Office Application is still a ways a way. While we are all rooting for those Open Office developers, we have to recognize that their battle is uphill.
Can you imagine that. You just get off a 32 hour flight from Timbucktoo, and you think, "Hey, I'll check my email." So you put in your credit card reluctantly, after seeing the exhorbarant fees, only to find that the thing BSDs. Of course, it keeps charging you! That is too good. Meanwhile, the poor sucker can't check into his hotel because his card is max-ed!
Putting a post about Apple on/. is flamebait. Why? Because we all know that hardware from Apple is more expensive than the comparable hardware of the industry. Apple charges a huge premium on their hardware. Why do we even bother discussing Apple on/.? I thought/. was all about bang for you buck (and not paying anything let alone getting ripped off). Is it Darwin? Ooohhh BSD/Next Oh My! It has a BSD variant core! Oh gosh, golly! Hey, if you want a Unix OS and are willing to fork over cash for hardware, go by a Sun workstation. (it might be cheaper!)
So let me get this straight. You should buy a system that performs the best under conditions that will occure.001% of the time and not one that performs better the rest of the time? That makes lots of sense. I love the way you can compare a specific chip (xeon) to an entire class of chip (risc) and make a statement like this. In this day and age there are no pure RISC or CISC architectures. It's' like China, not even they are 100% communist in practice.
Hmmm. Were you confused when I said RISC chips like the Sparc? Ok, obviously the Pentium is a RISC core with a CISC emmulations, and the lines everywhere have been blurred. Let me rephrase RISC with "high-end server chips". Are you still confused? You should never buy a chip that handles 1/1000 situations. However, high load is a fairly predictable and common situation for many of the more demanding server roles these days. I get the feeling/.'s database (quad Xeons) probably runs under fairly continous load during the day. Do you think they screwed up and they should downgrade to regular pentiums? From the performance I've seen today on/. they should be considering a 64bit chip with better throughput on all of their servers.
Point-to-point can only give the processors dedicated bus up to the Memory Repeater Hub at which point the processors will still compete for the same memory bandwidth. However point-to-point is still better than FSB.
I remember working at a place where this guy was complaining that some timing tests he ran on these E250's running 350Mhz Sparc II's vs. 450Mhz PIIIs clearly favored the PIII. I told him that his test was meaningless because he was not running the systems under full load. When I demonstrated by essentially DOSing the two systems with SSL requests, he saw how the throughput tends to smoke clockspeed in the end. High end chips come down to saturation performance. Of course compare a Xeon to pure RISC chip like the Sparc under these high load conditions and you'll see similar results. Clock speed loses to throughput under load.
You know when you sit down in the movie theater and the trailer adds for new movies comes on the screen. But, the trailers are for movies intended for 12 year-olds, or an "alternative" audience, or otherwise just a really bad movie. You start to get that feeling that movie that you've paid to see might be of the same caliber as the trailers, after all that's what the studio executives think.
Well, that's how I feel about this IBM campaign. Peace, Love and Linux
. I am not a hippy. The Hippies were a bunch of rich assholes who dodged the draft and took drugs. Those Hippies that survived are the gerks responsible for the power outages in California today. Not to mention that hippies have always been associated with of "naivette" and "counter-culture". I was offended (in a minor way... not like I lost sleep).
Then it hit me, that there are many similarities to the younger compsci culture and the hippies: ludicrous idealism, hypocracy, and disrespect. Kernel hacking is the new LSD. When we're 50 will we have some kind of crazy inode_hashtable or jiffies flashback? Anyway, I now realize that my opinions of so many/. articles/posts can be summed up with the word "techippy" because that is exactly what most of these people are.
The problem IBM is solving is a general distorted magnetic irregularity in the medium surface. This irregulatirty limits the area dedicated to a bit to a certain minimum size, otherwise the bit would "blend" in with the background noise of the medium. I imagine that this new pixie-dust vastly reduces the magnetic variance/distortion. Thus, allowing for finer resolution of the bit area.
Regardless of how you want to do this, you'll have to convert and binary documents to at least HTML or TEXT. The cheapest way is probably to serve up all of your documents on the web and then set up a deal with a search company to index and catalog your site. Whatever fee they charge you will be cheaper than devoting a server to being a database and dataminer. http://www.freefind.com/plans.html currently offers this service for free if you have less than 32Megs of data. Anyway, the $100 you spend a year will be cheaper than the servers, setup, etc.
However, if you want to do it the hard way go get aspseek from http://www.aspseek.org/. Its a GPL dataminer, search engine. Has everything you'll need.
GTP is a good thing and frankly its not Microsoft's responsibility to worry about linux dual booters. In the long run this will be good for linux, because GTP is far better than MBR which is older than the pyramids. However, in the near term this will be a huge hassel for those who know and love the current configuration of LILO and want to dual boot XP. This will really hit the small developer shop that relies on dual boots for office compatibility.
Option 1. Think about it. You've got a killer pipe of bandwith at your finger tips, probably a shell on some halfway decent box and a *nix workstation. Time to crank up emacs and gcc (or java, perl, python, lisp, fourth for all I care). No ideas. Well look around at some of the crappy solutions that they have you doing. First, write some scripts to automate your job, if you haven't already. You definitely don't want to be distracted by work. Second, look at some of the software they are using (burn cds for your home collection) and then look for weaknesses. Try and tackle something small with minimal UI or minimal backend.
With all of Bush's rhetoric about an energy crisis...
Slow down cowboy. The rhetoric is coming from the media, not the President. The media-mantra for the past three months has been that the energy crisis will bring down the presidency. Meanwhile gas prices are still cheaper than in 1999 under Clinton and considerably cheaper than in 1978 under Carter. As for the power crisis in California and the potential for a future shortage nationwide, I dont see any rehtoric at all. Clearly there is a short term crisis in California, and a long term problem for the rest of the country. While I am all for science R&D, statements like yours are rediculous. Commercial orbiting solar power stations are many years from becoming a reality along with fusion and mid-ocean tidal power plants. These technologies are exciting and certainly deserve funding and our interests. However, penciling in preposterous "unproven tech" in a national policy has already gotten Bush in trouble with Missile Defense. Do you suggest that he do the same will all of his policies?
There is no world conspiracy to drive up gas prices in the United States other than OPEC. Outside of the OPEC nations, the U.S. consumers enjoy the cheapest gas prices in the world. The energy crisis is one of refineries and a lack power plants.
Conservation is important, but what is more efficient, spending resources to become more efficient or spending resources to generate more power. Look at software engineering. Is/. authored with a custom C-solution. It would be alot faster than perl and appache. Why bother with an OS. Why not write an embedded system, it would be more efficient. Why use a generic relational database and not write something spesifically for your needs. Efficiency does not always translate into better (look at Java, Perl, Python, etc).
... and the goatsex guy will have that board covered. After a few days, the people in that town will be so right-wing they'll want to abolish talking in public.
While my comparison is an expression of my own prejudices, I completely disagree with you.
First, I dont think it is fair to critize Christianity over any of the other mainstream as well as other sects and cults. My reference to BibleTV is a poor euphamism for TeleEvagelism, which is not just a US phenonemon, but occurs in places like Africa as well. Clearly its roots are in the US. Essentially these preachers perform all sorts of miracles on TV, a suck their flock dry of every cent they have. They do so in the name of Jesus and have tax exempt status in the US. They are no different than the Scientologists in my view. I would view their roving parishes as sects (you could call them cults) because clearly they are not mainstream Baptist Christians.
I would state right out that I am not defending Scientology, I am simply pointing out that they have protection under the 1st ammendment.
Thirdly, Scientology is an organization just as the Catholic Church is an organization. They both have PR, Marketing, Accounting, etc. They both share tax exempt status in the US.
While the middle ages should be considered (as along with the rest of history), the important issue in this case is 1789 when the 1st ammendment and the bill of rights was set into law. At that time, the Puratainism sect of Christianity recalled its roots as a persecuted sect of the anglican church, and insisted that choice of faith, and the right to freedom of religion be universal in the United States.
I agree that Scientology is a scam, however, I disagree that it is any more of a scam compared to Televangelism. Miracle healings + financial ruin = same formula.
As for your corporate comparison, Scientology's structural oranization is not that far from that of the Roman Catholic Church, or those of many Eastern religions. The Christian Coalition is an American non-profit that has poltical lobbiests, PR people, fund raisers, advertisers, etc. Religions are organizations. They have marketing, accounting, operations, and other departments just like any business or government. Is the modern Catholic Church a scam to get your money? I don't think so. One could agrue it is a scam for power, but I think it is not black and white. Clearly, the Scientologists are a scam, but the only difference between them and the other organizations is one of intention.
I do believe the 2nd Ammendment needs to be ammended, especially with regards to the tax-exempt status.
For example, I see you a bible as a church, and the proceeds are tax-exempt (I can use them to fund my retreat in Barbados.) But, if I sell you a how-to-be-a-succesful-happy-person book, I pay taxes. Its all a bunch of bullshit. However, there is no point even talking about it, because it will NEVER change in this country. The majority of the country (perhaps rightfully) would rather put up with Scientology than have their church pay taxes.
Throughout history, cults have been branded as nefarious, predatory and corrupt. If one sits down and looks at the facts surrounding the critisims of Scientology and compares them to any of the major religions and the histories of those religions, the differences are obscured. Compare scientology to the preachers on BibleTV, and one finds little difference. Is it a scam, of course. However, freedom of religion carries with it the same burdens of freedom of speech in that you take the good with the bad. If you start to shit on the first ammendment you are shitting on the constitution.
On a much more synical note, I'm in favor of things like Scientology in that they weed out (Darwin-effect) societies idiots. Its like the Judas-Priest albumn, or that MTV show that caused those kids to run themselves over. These things should be encouraged to rid our society of the Tom Cruises of the world.
Slashdot Mirror
I am no fan of the GPL but you are completely wrong and the GPL stands on solid footing on this issue. The independent excemption in the GPL applies if the works "can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves" Just because something links to the kernel doesn't mean it is a derivative work, because the code could be "reasonably considered independent." You could compile the code for a different (POSIX compliant) kernel. In the case of kernel modules you are simply utilizing a service (no different from a TCP/IP request to Appache) of the GPL'd application, not creating a derivative work. In this particular case, Vidomi's work is clearly derivative and an extension of the GPL'd work. Their intent of the DLLs was to circumvent the GPL. They will lose if this ever gets to court.
These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.
What idiots. Clearly if you write non-derived modules and distribute them individually, such pieces are not under the GPL. Once you package it all up for distribution everything falls under the GPL. What an idiot. Time to get an attorney people or fork over the code!
I would say that languages have been sucessful that have proprietary control: VisualBasic, Java, Delphi. Microsoft hopes C# will also be successful. However, what makes a language successful has nothing to do with who controls it, but with its effectiveness. C++ for example has been bogged down in standards committees for years, and yet clearly established itself due to its incredible effectiveness and inter-compatibility with C. Java failed to become to the new defacto platform for GUI but, landed a home run with net service applications. VB is just a quick way to do Windows GUI work, but its a horrible language by anyone's admission. I don't think Perl's more open approach to design has much of an effect on the user base. Perl's success is due more in part to its natural ability as a workhorse. Python's sudden rise to the scene is a credit to its natural form and cross-platform glue, not its open source. For that matter, I don't use Linux because it's open source. I use Linux because its a damn good OS and extremely cost effective. Open Source projects do not garauntee a project will be successful. It is simply an alternative model of development.
First of all, Windows is a huge Operating System compared to most Unix featuresets. To make matters considerabley more complicated, POSIX is a well-defined, clean standard in all respects. Making a POSIX implementation unix clone is a fairly straightforward operation with well documented and defined goals, limitations and requirements. The win32 API is enourmously deverse in form, structure and compatibility. Much of it harkens back to win16 (HGBLOBALs, HDROP etc). Much of the API is a complete departure from the traditional C-like win32 API (OLE). So the question becomes what is fully implemented? There are things that Solaris has that Linux doesnt. So is linux not fully implemented? Wine is pretty close on Win32. As close as you can get. They just need to work out the bugs.
If you could encace one of the participants with boxes running snoot, you'd could eventually figure this thing out. Sounds like security through obscurity which we all know doesnt really work, especially if you're the CIA.
First of all, Ximian, a great linux desktop, takes about an hour to set up, not 4 days. It takes you 3-4 days to set up a windows client? What the heck are you putting on there that takes that long? What does the hard drive have like a 10rpm governor on it or something?
Linux has never been a candidate to replace Office+Windows. We all speculate and hope, but the reality is that aint going to happen in at least the next 4 years if ever. However, the Linux desktop will live on in the many other market applications other than Office. How about, Developement, IT management console, Fortune500 Enterprize Appliances (cash registers, airline reservation desktops, other one-offs), etc. Imagine how many linux workstations companies like Verizon, HP, IBM, Motorola, etc have to have for their various development enterprizes. The Linux Desktop is NOT dead. The Linux Office Application is still a ways a way. While we are all rooting for those Open Office developers, we have to recognize that their battle is uphill.
To bad the satellites dont run in COBOL because you could just compile this excerpt.
Can you imagine that. You just get off a 32 hour flight from Timbucktoo, and you think, "Hey, I'll check my email." So you put in your credit card reluctantly, after seeing the exhorbarant fees, only to find that the thing BSDs. Of course, it keeps charging you! That is too good. Meanwhile, the poor sucker can't check into his hotel because his card is max-ed!
Here are some price comparisons.
Apple------------------Other
$2,199.00--------------$1,995
533MHz-----------------400Mhz SparcII
PowerPC G4-------------Sun Ultra 5 400
1MB L2 cache-----------2MB L2 cache
128MB SDRAM -----------128 SDRAM
40GB Ultra ATA---------20G 7200rpm EIDE
CD-RW Drive------------48x CR-ROM
NVIDIA GeForce2 MX-----PGx24 Graphics
Gigabit Ethernet-------10/100 Ethernet
56K internal modem
$2,499-----------------$2,600
Dual 533MHz------------Dual PIII 933MHz pc133
PowerPC G4-------------IBM xSeries 220
1MB L2 cache-----------256kb L2 cache
128MB SDRAM memory-----128 MB Ecc Reg SDRAM
40GB Ultra ATA---------18G Ultra160 SCSI
CD-RW Drive------------48x CD-ROM
NVIDIA GeForce2 MX-----Integrated 8Mg video
Gigabit Ethernet-------Gigabit Ethernet
56K internal modem-----10/100 Ethernet
$2,999-----------------2,027
733MHz-----------------1.7GHz
PowerPC G4-------------Dell Dimmension 8100
256K L2 & 1MB L3-------256K L2 Cache
256MB SDRAM memory-----256 SDRAM Memory
60GB Ultra ATA---------60GB Ultra ATA
CD-RW drive------------CD-RW Drive
NVIDIA GeForce2 MX-----NVIDIA GeForce2 MX
Gigabit Ethernet-------10/100 Ethernet
56K internal modem-----56K modem
Let the flame begin.
Hmmm. Were you confused when I said RISC chips like the Sparc? Ok, obviously the Pentium is a RISC core with a CISC emmulations, and the lines everywhere have been blurred. Let me rephrase RISC with "high-end server chips". Are you still confused? You should never buy a chip that handles 1/1000 situations. However, high load is a fairly predictable and common situation for many of the more demanding server roles these days. I get the feeling /.'s database (quad Xeons) probably runs under fairly continous load during the day. Do you think they screwed up and they should downgrade to regular pentiums? From the performance I've seen today on /. they should be considering a 64bit chip with better throughput on all of their servers.
Point-to-point can only give the processors dedicated bus up to the Memory Repeater Hub at which point the processors will still compete for the same memory bandwidth. However point-to-point is still better than FSB.
I remember working at a place where this guy was complaining that some timing tests he ran on these E250's running 350Mhz Sparc II's vs. 450Mhz PIIIs clearly favored the PIII. I told him that his test was meaningless because he was not running the systems under full load. When I demonstrated by essentially DOSing the two systems with SSL requests, he saw how the throughput tends to smoke clockspeed in the end. High end chips come down to saturation performance. Of course compare a Xeon to pure RISC chip like the Sparc under these high load conditions and you'll see similar results. Clock speed loses to throughput under load.
Well, that's how I feel about this IBM campaign. Peace, Love and Linux
. I am not a hippy. The Hippies were a bunch of rich assholes who dodged the draft and took drugs. Those Hippies that survived are the gerks responsible for the power outages in California today. Not to mention that hippies have always been associated with of "naivette" and "counter-culture". I was offended (in a minor way... not like I lost sleep).Then it hit me, that there are many similarities to the younger compsci culture and the hippies: ludicrous idealism, hypocracy, and disrespect. Kernel hacking is the new LSD. When we're 50 will we have some kind of crazy inode_hashtable or jiffies flashback? Anyway, I now realize that my opinions of so many /. articles/posts can be summed up with the word "techippy" because that is exactly what most of these people are.
The problem IBM is solving is a general distorted magnetic irregularity in the medium surface. This irregulatirty limits the area dedicated to a bit to a certain minimum size, otherwise the bit would "blend" in with the background noise of the medium. I imagine that this new pixie-dust vastly reduces the magnetic variance/distortion. Thus, allowing for finer resolution of the bit area.
John Glenn passed his test.
Regardless of how you want to do this, you'll have to convert and binary documents to at least HTML or TEXT. The cheapest way is probably to serve up all of your documents on the web and then set up a deal with a search company to index and catalog your site. Whatever fee they charge you will be cheaper than devoting a server to being a database and dataminer. http://www.freefind.com/plans.html currently offers this service for free if you have less than 32Megs of data. Anyway, the $100 you spend a year will be cheaper than the servers, setup, etc. However, if you want to do it the hard way go get aspseek from http://www.aspseek.org/. Its a GPL dataminer, search engine. Has everything you'll need.
GTP is a good thing and frankly its not Microsoft's responsibility to worry about linux dual booters. In the long run this will be good for linux, because GTP is far better than MBR which is older than the pyramids. However, in the near term this will be a huge hassel for those who know and love the current configuration of LILO and want to dual boot XP. This will really hit the small developer shop that relies on dual boots for office compatibility.
Option 1. Think about it. You've got a killer pipe of bandwith at your finger tips, probably a shell on some halfway decent box and a *nix workstation. Time to crank up emacs and gcc (or java, perl, python, lisp, fourth for all I care). No ideas. Well look around at some of the crappy solutions that they have you doing. First, write some scripts to automate your job, if you haven't already. You definitely don't want to be distracted by work. Second, look at some of the software they are using (burn cds for your home collection) and then look for weaknesses. Try and tackle something small with minimal UI or minimal backend.
Option 2. Run a brothel.
Slow down cowboy. The rhetoric is coming from the media, not the President. The media-mantra for the past three months has been that the energy crisis will bring down the presidency. Meanwhile gas prices are still cheaper than in 1999 under Clinton and considerably cheaper than in 1978 under Carter. As for the power crisis in California and the potential for a future shortage nationwide, I dont see any rehtoric at all. Clearly there is a short term crisis in California, and a long term problem for the rest of the country. While I am all for science R&D, statements like yours are rediculous. Commercial orbiting solar power stations are many years from becoming a reality along with fusion and mid-ocean tidal power plants. These technologies are exciting and certainly deserve funding and our interests. However, penciling in preposterous "unproven tech" in a national policy has already gotten Bush in trouble with Missile Defense. Do you suggest that he do the same will all of his policies?
There is no world conspiracy to drive up gas prices in the United States other than OPEC. Outside of the OPEC nations, the U.S. consumers enjoy the cheapest gas prices in the world. The energy crisis is one of refineries and a lack power plants.
Conservation is important, but what is more efficient, spending resources to become more efficient or spending resources to generate more power. Look at software engineering. Is /. authored with a custom C-solution. It would be alot faster than perl and appache. Why bother with an OS. Why not write an embedded system, it would be more efficient. Why use a generic relational database and not write something spesifically for your needs. Efficiency does not always translate into better (look at Java, Perl, Python, etc).
... and the goatsex guy will have that board covered. After a few days, the people in that town will be so right-wing they'll want to abolish talking in public.
While my comparison is an expression of my own prejudices, I completely disagree with you.
First, I dont think it is fair to critize Christianity over any of the other mainstream as well as other sects and cults. My reference to BibleTV is a poor euphamism for TeleEvagelism, which is not just a US phenonemon, but occurs in places like Africa as well. Clearly its roots are in the US. Essentially these preachers perform all sorts of miracles on TV, a suck their flock dry of every cent they have. They do so in the name of Jesus and have tax exempt status in the US. They are no different than the Scientologists in my view. I would view their roving parishes as sects (you could call them cults) because clearly they are not mainstream Baptist Christians.
I would state right out that I am not defending Scientology, I am simply pointing out that they have protection under the 1st ammendment.
Thirdly, Scientology is an organization just as the Catholic Church is an organization. They both have PR, Marketing, Accounting, etc. They both share tax exempt status in the US.
While the middle ages should be considered (as along with the rest of history), the important issue in this case is 1789 when the 1st ammendment and the bill of rights was set into law. At that time, the Puratainism sect of Christianity recalled its roots as a persecuted sect of the anglican church, and insisted that choice of faith, and the right to freedom of religion be universal in the United States.
I agree that Scientology is a scam, however, I disagree that it is any more of a scam compared to Televangelism. Miracle healings + financial ruin = same formula.
As for your corporate comparison, Scientology's structural oranization is not that far from that of the Roman Catholic Church, or those of many Eastern religions. The Christian Coalition is an American non-profit that has poltical lobbiests, PR people, fund raisers, advertisers, etc. Religions are organizations. They have marketing, accounting, operations, and other departments just like any business or government. Is the modern Catholic Church a scam to get your money? I don't think so. One could agrue it is a scam for power, but I think it is not black and white. Clearly, the Scientologists are a scam, but the only difference between them and the other organizations is one of intention.
I do believe the 2nd Ammendment needs to be ammended, especially with regards to the tax-exempt status.
For example, I see you a bible as a church, and the proceeds are tax-exempt (I can use them to fund my retreat in Barbados.) But, if I sell you a how-to-be-a-succesful-happy-person book, I pay taxes. Its all a bunch of bullshit. However, there is no point even talking about it, because it will NEVER change in this country. The majority of the country (perhaps rightfully) would rather put up with Scientology than have their church pay taxes.
Throughout history, cults have been branded as nefarious, predatory and corrupt. If one sits down and looks at the facts surrounding the critisims of Scientology and compares them to any of the major religions and the histories of those religions, the differences are obscured. Compare scientology to the preachers on BibleTV, and one finds little difference. Is it a scam, of course. However, freedom of religion carries with it the same burdens of freedom of speech in that you take the good with the bad. If you start to shit on the first ammendment you are shitting on the constitution. On a much more synical note, I'm in favor of things like Scientology in that they weed out (Darwin-effect) societies idiots. Its like the Judas-Priest albumn, or that MTV show that caused those kids to run themselves over. These things should be encouraged to rid our society of the Tom Cruises of the world.