Most people who go crazy over these new technologies are either wanting it for pure bragging rights, or simply aren't aware of how little it will actually do for them... or both in all liklihood.
While bragging rights do constitute one of my goals in going dual-core, there are other motivations at work as well. (Granted, I may not be a representative of the market proper). I like to upgrade my systems once every 2-4 years, and hold out until several strides are made in computer design. The goal when building computers this way is that the amortized cost is less than that of smaller incremental upgrades.
It requires keeping a good eye on the tech industry, and understanding when certain hardware will break into your budget. You then plan around those releases. For instance: I planned my last upgrade (about 2 months ago) to be compatible with Dual-core. I went with a socket 939 and a low-end Athlon 64, expecting to get the dual core when it comes out.
Something that should be noted is that I knew when I bought it that I would have an OS that could take full advantage of the tech. I am preparing Gentoo on an Athlon64. When the X2 comes out, I'll have a fully functional, 64-bit OS. All I have to do is boot into windows, perform the bios update, and drop in the new proc.
As for which proc I'll end up buying: definitely going for the 4400+. The 1MB cache is worth the $50-60, especially considering my purchase practices.
From what I know of OC'ing, PC extremists use it as a hobby. Just like you or I would spend hours carefully tweaking linux (etc) to be the best it can be, they tweak their system. Personally, I like linux tweaking much better; It's easier on the wallet.
If you failed to note the privacy policy for a product you use, it's your own fault.
Software does have bugs in it. No joke. Honest. Google happened to not fix that one.
The software is in beta by using it, you consent that it might screw things up.
It is unfortunate that this happened, but I really can't place the blame soley on Google. The people who decided to use the software are equally at fault.
Furthermore, anyone (companies included), no matter what their intentions, can still make mistakes. The issue presents itself only after they refuse to rectify the problems they cause. When they refuse to claim responsibility for what they did.
I am disgusted that after Google declared their "do no evil" policy, that everyone starts nailing them to a cross. Sure, they should be monitored closely. Precisely because of their impact in our online activities, we should be remain vigilent. Unfortunately, the media frenzy over every fault I find disturbing.
By providing Open Source, you're not giving away a secret, but you are giving away an implementation.
All you're doing, if anything, is saving your potential competitor a bit of coding and debugging.
Not to mention the design/archetecture of the program (interface-wise). Bascially, you save them the entire cost of developing the app. Say that I create Killer App X. I implement it from the ground up. Now, my company can either keep it proprietary, or release it under an OSS license. If they keep it proprietary, then the competition needs to duplicate the whole thing. Meanwhile, if you release it under an OSS license:
It becomes harder to sell (anyone can just copy it and license it for free).
Any improvements you make can be immediately disributed freely, as source must be provided. (see the previous point).
It loses direction (unless you rule over it with an iron fist, e.g. CDDL & Bretheren).
It could fork, and "run amok" (related to, but not identical to, the previous point),
It seems to me that the PHB has a greater chance of profiting by keeping it closed.
Note: these are his arguments, as I see them. I realized that a few of the things he presented in the discussion (which occured only yesterday) are fallacious. I have discarded them, as I don't need them debunked;).
One of my good friends (still in college) is a PHB in training. (He's much more technical & intelligent than the one from Dilbert). And yet he thinks the same way as the rest of them, when it comes to OSS. Stuck in the "crufty old ways" of software development.
The problem with OSS, as he sees it, is it has yet to show that it can be consistently (and largely) profitable (stock wise). To do that, you need to show consistent gains, and have marketing plans. OSS doesn't do consistent gains and marketing plans. It's not directed enough. Also, when you create OSS, as soon as you release a new feature, all of your competition knows how you did it. That is something that really deters businesses from creating OSS.
Overall: The most successful PHBs are in it for the money. And big money doesn't exist in the OSS world. Stable money is there, if you leverage it correctly. But the PHB doesn't want stable. He wants tons. At least, that's the way it seems to me.
I have other ideas, though. I feel that there are several ways to benefit from OSS. I hope to gather a group of like-minded people, and create something truly wonderful for the OSS community. It has given me so much over the past years, and it would be wonderful to give something back.
"Tell me which one would you believe more - Microsoft claiming that they're working on patches to fix some exploits "as we speak", or they're asking users to download the patches now?"
Tell me which one would you belive more - Microsoft claiming the they're innovating Longhorn "as we speak", or that it's available at your local Office Max now?
Would be a much more fitting example. Quite frankly, I think that Sun will eventually release OpenSolaris. When it happens, I'll take a gander at it, as will the rest of the net. Then we'll move on.
On a wholly unrelated note: Is it possible to take CDDL code and place it in a GPL'd project? I know GPL > CDDL "no workie". But they said in the article that a proprietary vendor could take their code... why would an open one not be able to?
Re:Are they completely out of touch?
on
Gates on Google
·
· Score: 2, Funny
But the frightening thing I've found is that whenever he talks about it, he always talks about "the next version." We should go ahead and use more of it in our production systems because of what they're going to put into it "soon."... Unfortunately, they are all either in Alpha or Beta, or are planned to come out soon.
side note: I hate IE. With a passion. It doesn't track what I type, so when I accidentally hit back, I lose/everything/.::grumble::
Compare how much programs in 3.1 did versus what they do now. Word didn't offer spell checking, grammar checking, and hosts of other goodies. Visual Studio didn't even exist (sic?)
That paragraph was really supposed to be taken in context with the following one... because applications use so much memory, offloading composite window generation to VRAM will make a significant difference in "regular" RAM consumption.
Please note, I am emphasizing composite windowing. If you render your windows the "current way" (e.g. bit blitting), you only need enough VRAM to hold 2 screens.
I have noticed the speed difference between CPU and composite rendering (on Linux). The difference is caused by the offloading of processing, combined with bus contention. With composite rendering, there is less of each.
An example (from linux) is when one moves a window versus resizing it. Resizing causes CPU-work, as kdm redraws and re-themes the entire window, on the CPU. That's why the window flickers (along with bus contention issues, see below). You can see the same effect in MS Windows. However, when you move a window with compositing, you don't ever see the flicker. I have yet to experience shearing, either. Meanwhile, with all of the windows in RAM, and your CPU doing the work, flicker and shear occur wontonly.
How bad could the stress be? It couldn't be using more than a 486-66 worth of speed, since that's what I used to have. That's what? 1-2% of a modern CPU
However, a 486-66 is not capable of running most of today's software with any form of expediency, if you can get it to run at all. Try using WinXP on a 486, then get back to me. (Or, if you are a member of the *nix camp, try installing a desktop on it. Biiiig difference.
I saw some crazy zoomers implemented as 4-64K demos in DOS. Very smooth
DOS has an effective overhead of 0 when compared to a modern OS. It supported practically no hardware (drivers had to be written for individual programs) and provided no high-level functionality (for instance, virtual memory, HAL). It is all but defunct now. Furthermore, note that I said "with almost no work done by your CPU". And, just to make sure we're on the same page here, compositing requires your CPU to tell the graphics card "scale this, and place it here". The DOS scalers you mention had to do all of their work on the CPU. I call additional attention to the word "demo" in your response. The comparison is fundamentally invalid.
Look, my point is, hardware is getting better and better, but software is getting much worse, with very little in the way of new features, especially talking about things like WMs and GUIs. Thousands of times slower.
Software, while being "thousands of times slower", provides more functionality now than it ever has. Furthermore, there has been a shift towards proper programming practices, which make the software easier to manage over time. Granted, I belive that certain aspects of our software is pure garbage, but overall (especially in the context of OSS) I see it improving drastically.
We don't need a 512meg video card, we need less bloated software
The issue here is that you are misunderstanding the use of a 512 MB card. In this case, we don't need it because of software bloat. We want it because it allows us to create more usable software. Compositing is not the panacea for all of GUI's ills. However, it does fix quite a few issues in the field.
As an aside, the main reason why flicker/etc is caused is because of archetectural limitations. The amount of data that needs to cross from RAM to VRAM takes time. The time isn't negligible, and it causes artifacts to become visible.
"Think about how Windows 3.1 managed to do it with maybe 50 windows at a time on a system with 4 megs of system ram, and barely enough video ram to store a frame buffer.
As far as I am concerned, "windowing technology" hasn't much advanced since Win 3.1."
It has advanced quite a bit, however you may not know where to look to see it. Compare how much programs in 3.1 did versus what they do now. Word didn't offer spell checking, grammar checking, and hosts of other goodies. Visual Studio didn't even exist (sic?).
Offloading graphical capabilities to the video card allows the windowing system to feel and act more responsivly. The RAM which used to be used for windowing can now be freed up, and used for other tasks. Things like the spell checking, speech recognition, compiling (especially compiling), graphical editing...
Also, compositing reduces the stress on your CPU immensely, and gives you a large amount of "free" capabilities. For instance, composited windows can be zoomed up or down with almost no work done by your CPU. Window transparency occurs seamlessly, and window refresh times are practically nil.
There is a good reason why you havn't noticed these benefits. You have to have a good eye to even see it. I would not have noticed myself if I hadn't been running a good graphics card on veritably ancient hardware (Nvidia 5800 on a Pentium 1.8 with 256 RAM, with all the bells and whistles on... plus I run KDE;)
Furthermore, many of the features I noted above are just beginning (except in the case of Macs) to be implemented in windowing systems. So, a good reason why you havn't seen the advancement is because you are living it.
The future of window compositing looks even cooler. Pixel shaded desktops with real-time lighting & particle generators, true 3d effects (wobbly windows is an example), amongst other things which havn't even been considered yet. Granted, large portions of the above are eye-candy, but even eye-candy can be but to good use when applied creatively.
"unless your MMPORG allows you to record/playback a demo, it would be impossible to make any meaningful comparisons between runs and/or different cards."
There is another solution: ask MMORPG manufacturers to provide a "real-world-like" testbench. I can think of 3 separate tests, off the top of my head.
Test the rendering capabilities of a card. This would be similar to a 3d-mark test. It runs completely on 1 machine, and just tries to stress the hell out of the card.
A "real world" test, where the testing app connects to an actual instance generated on a server. This way, you can see the effect on the entire computer (as well, of course, as your network connection).
Another example could be to provide a "server" (really just an ordered packet generator) which you install on a separate system, and the testing app "connects to".
Or, we could stop using quantitative results, and instead go qualitative. I doubt that'll happen, though.
"Hahaha you're so funny" I know. I thoght that too. He really is quite funny.
"Like, Windows has the 'blue screen of death', and you said 'the windows will go blue', like a blue windscreen of death! Well, you didn't have to go ruining it for everyone else! Geez. The children are crying now.
"Really, you are the first person to ever make that joke comparing Windows crashing and cars crashing. Working in the 'blue screen' thing is really fucking witty. Honestly." I sense sarcasm here. You should calm down. Cruise the relaxation highway. Find your cave. Take a chill pill. Get a load off. Take a ride on the cool train...
8. Is it permissible to accept a free copy of a computer game or program from a friend? Why or why not?
It's only weak if the sponsor for the badge is lax in his grading. There are equally valid reasons for both sides of the question. The question isn't looking for an answer. It's looking for a justification of the answer.
A scout is a lot of things. Trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent.
Seems to fit the bill to me. Then again, when I was back in the scouts, we really didn't follow anything. And I am proud to say that I almost made it to scout, after 6 years!
note: not really. I made it 1 badge short of star, and promptly lost interest.
I am a student at Drexel University (in Philly,PA), and our chapter of CircleK did the same stuff. I remember painting porches, replacing mulch, planting trees, clearing lots (etc, etc)... all for a neighborhood that was owned by a "slumlord". We were doing his dirtywork, and doing it for free.
The analogy was not comparing convicted criminals to Jews. It was noting that accepting the treatment of 1 "class" (don't know a better word for it) of people inevitably leads towards the accepted treatment of others.
That should read First they came for the jews yadda yadda then they came for me because I like to bugger dead goats and no one complained. Mainly because once the neighbors found out, they thought it was really creepy...
The point I was trying to make was that it always starts with something acceptable to the populus at large. After that, the noose gets a little tighter each day.
So, It'll start with pedophiles, but it'll definitely grow to encompass other crimes once it's passed once.
"The question is does the RFID provide non-repudiation? If it's possible to copy the RFID, then no, it doesn't, and then it won't matter if someone steals your RFID."
Unless a politition who doesn't understand the technology decides the limits of the RFID "don't apply".
First they came for the Jews, and I didn't care, because I'm not a Jew. Then they came for the gays, and I didn't care, because I'm not gay. Then they came for the blacks, and I didn't care, because I'm not black. Then they came for me, and there was noone left to stop them.
Slashdot Mirror
Most people who go crazy over these new technologies are either wanting it for pure bragging rights, or simply aren't aware of how little it will actually do for them... or both in all liklihood.
While bragging rights do constitute one of my goals in going dual-core, there are other motivations at work as well. (Granted, I may not be a representative of the market proper). I like to upgrade my systems once every 2-4 years, and hold out until several strides are made in computer design. The goal when building computers this way is that the amortized cost is less than that of smaller incremental upgrades.
It requires keeping a good eye on the tech industry, and understanding when certain hardware will break into your budget. You then plan around those releases. For instance: I planned my last upgrade (about 2 months ago) to be compatible with Dual-core. I went with a socket 939 and a low-end Athlon 64, expecting to get the dual core when it comes out.
Something that should be noted is that I knew when I bought it that I would have an OS that could take full advantage of the tech. I am preparing Gentoo on an Athlon64. When the X2 comes out, I'll have a fully functional, 64-bit OS. All I have to do is boot into windows, perform the bios update, and drop in the new proc.
As for which proc I'll end up buying: definitely going for the 4400+. The 1MB cache is worth the $50-60, especially considering my purchase practices.
From what I know of OC'ing, PC extremists use it as a hobby. Just like you or I would spend hours carefully tweaking linux (etc) to be the best it can be, they tweak their system. Personally, I like linux tweaking much better; It's easier on the wallet.
I wonder if PJ is even going to dignify it with a response. (Or has she already?)
- If you failed to note the privacy policy for a product you use, it's your own fault.
- Software does have bugs in it. No joke. Honest. Google happened to not fix that one.
- The software is in beta by using it, you consent that it might screw things up.
It is unfortunate that this happened, but I really can't place the blame soley on Google. The people who decided to use the software are equally at fault.Furthermore, anyone (companies included), no matter what their intentions, can still make mistakes. The issue presents itself only after they refuse to rectify the problems they cause. When they refuse to claim responsibility for what they did.
I am disgusted that after Google declared their "do no evil" policy, that everyone starts nailing them to a cross. Sure, they should be monitored closely. Precisely because of their impact in our online activities, we should be remain vigilent. Unfortunately, the media frenzy over every fault I find disturbing.
And yes, the same goes for MS.
By providing Open Source, you're not giving away a secret, but you are giving away an implementation.
All you're doing, if anything, is saving your potential competitor a bit of coding and debugging.
Not to mention the design/archetecture of the program (interface-wise). Bascially, you save them the entire cost of developing the app. Say that I create Killer App X. I implement it from the ground up. Now, my company can either keep it proprietary, or release it under an OSS license. If they keep it proprietary, then the competition needs to duplicate the whole thing. Meanwhile, if you release it under an OSS license:
- It becomes harder to sell (anyone can just copy it and license it for free).
- Any improvements you make can be immediately disributed freely, as source must be provided. (see the previous point).
- It loses direction (unless you rule over it with an iron fist, e.g. CDDL & Bretheren).
- It could fork, and "run amok" (related to, but not identical to, the previous point),
It seems to me that the PHB has a greater chance of profiting by keeping it closed.Note: these are his arguments, as I see them. I realized that a few of the things he presented in the discussion (which occured only yesterday) are fallacious. I have discarded them, as I don't need them debunked ;) .
One of my good friends (still in college) is a PHB in training. (He's much more technical & intelligent than the one from Dilbert). And yet he thinks the same way as the rest of them, when it comes to OSS. Stuck in the "crufty old ways" of software development.
The problem with OSS, as he sees it, is it has yet to show that it can be consistently (and largely) profitable (stock wise). To do that, you need to show consistent gains, and have marketing plans. OSS doesn't do consistent gains and marketing plans. It's not directed enough. Also, when you create OSS, as soon as you release a new feature, all of your competition knows how you did it. That is something that really deters businesses from creating OSS.
Overall: The most successful PHBs are in it for the money. And big money doesn't exist in the OSS world. Stable money is there, if you leverage it correctly. But the PHB doesn't want stable. He wants tons. At least, that's the way it seems to me.
I have other ideas, though. I feel that there are several ways to benefit from OSS. I hope to gather a group of like-minded people, and create something truly wonderful for the OSS community. It has given me so much over the past years, and it would be wonderful to give something back.
"Tell me which one would you believe more - Microsoft claiming that they're working on patches to fix some exploits "as we speak", or they're asking users to download the patches now?"
Tell me which one would you belive more - Microsoft claiming the they're innovating Longhorn "as we speak", or that it's available at your local Office Max now?
Would be a much more fitting example. Quite frankly, I think that Sun will eventually release OpenSolaris. When it happens, I'll take a gander at it, as will the rest of the net. Then we'll move on.
On a wholly unrelated note: Is it possible to take CDDL code and place it in a GPL'd project? I know GPL > CDDL "no workie". But they said in the article that a proprietary vendor could take their code... why would an open one not be able to?
But the frightening thing I've found is that whenever he talks about it, he always talks about "the next version." We should go ahead and use more of it in our production systems because of what they're going to put into it "soon." ... Unfortunately, they are all either in Alpha or Beta, or are planned to come out soon.
Sounds like the same thing I do with OSS ;)
or Google rolling a killer Linux distribution (feel the waves of fear emanating from the NorthWest...)
Now that'd be hot. Where do I sign up?
Still can't believe that there was a movie with Samuel L Jackson where he didn't say the words "fuck" or "shit".
How about bloody f***ing terrible?
Somewhat off topic... but what's with all the Irony posts? They are really beginning to irk me ;)
side note: I hate IE. With a passion. It doesn't track what I type, so when I accidentally hit back, I lose /everything/. ::grumble::
Compare how much programs in 3.1 did versus what they do now. Word didn't offer spell checking, grammar checking, and hosts of other goodies. Visual Studio didn't even exist (sic?)
That paragraph was really supposed to be taken in context with the following one... because applications use so much memory, offloading composite window generation to VRAM will make a significant difference in "regular" RAM consumption.
Please note, I am emphasizing composite windowing. If you render your windows the "current way" (e.g. bit blitting), you only need enough VRAM to hold 2 screens.
I have noticed the speed difference between CPU and composite rendering (on Linux). The difference is caused by the offloading of processing, combined with bus contention. With composite rendering, there is less of each.
An example (from linux) is when one moves a window versus resizing it. Resizing causes CPU-work, as kdm redraws and re-themes the entire window, on the CPU. That's why the window flickers (along with bus contention issues, see below). You can see the same effect in MS Windows. However, when you move a window with compositing, you don't ever see the flicker. I have yet to experience shearing, either. Meanwhile, with all of the windows in RAM, and your CPU doing the work, flicker and shear occur wontonly.
How bad could the stress be? It couldn't be using more than a 486-66 worth of speed, since that's what I used to have. That's what? 1-2% of a modern CPU
However, a 486-66 is not capable of running most of today's software with any form of expediency, if you can get it to run at all. Try using WinXP on a 486, then get back to me. (Or, if you are a member of the *nix camp, try installing a desktop on it. Biiiig difference.
I saw some crazy zoomers implemented as 4-64K demos in DOS. Very smooth
DOS has an effective overhead of 0 when compared to a modern OS. It supported practically no hardware (drivers had to be written for individual programs) and provided no high-level functionality (for instance, virtual memory, HAL). It is all but defunct now. Furthermore, note that I said "with almost no work done by your CPU". And, just to make sure we're on the same page here, compositing requires your CPU to tell the graphics card "scale this, and place it here". The DOS scalers you mention had to do all of their work on the CPU. I call additional attention to the word "demo" in your response. The comparison is fundamentally invalid.
Look, my point is, hardware is getting better and better, but software is getting much worse, with very little in the way of new features, especially talking about things like WMs and GUIs. Thousands of times slower.
Software, while being "thousands of times slower", provides more functionality now than it ever has. Furthermore, there has been a shift towards proper programming practices, which make the software easier to manage over time. Granted, I belive that certain aspects of our software is pure garbage, but overall (especially in the context of OSS) I see it improving drastically.
We don't need a 512meg video card, we need less bloated software
The issue here is that you are misunderstanding the use of a 512 MB card. In this case, we don't need it because of software bloat. We want it because it allows us to create more usable software. Compositing is not the panacea for all of GUI's ills. However, it does fix quite a few issues in the field.
As an aside, the main reason why flicker/etc is caused is because of archetectural limitations. The amount of data that needs to cross from RAM to VRAM takes time. The time isn't negligible, and it causes artifacts to become visible.
"Think about how Windows 3.1 managed to do it with maybe 50 windows at a time on a system with 4 megs of system ram, and barely enough video ram to store a frame buffer.
As far as I am concerned, "windowing technology" hasn't much advanced since Win 3.1."
It has advanced quite a bit, however you may not know where to look to see it. Compare how much programs in 3.1 did versus what they do now. Word didn't offer spell checking, grammar checking, and hosts of other goodies. Visual Studio didn't even exist (sic?).
Offloading graphical capabilities to the video card allows the windowing system to feel and act more responsivly. The RAM which used to be used for windowing can now be freed up, and used for other tasks. Things like the spell checking, speech recognition, compiling (especially compiling), graphical editing...
Also, compositing reduces the stress on your CPU immensely, and gives you a large amount of "free" capabilities. For instance, composited windows can be zoomed up or down with almost no work done by your CPU. Window transparency occurs seamlessly, and window refresh times are practically nil.
There is a good reason why you havn't noticed these benefits. You have to have a good eye to even see it. I would not have noticed myself if I hadn't been running a good graphics card on veritably ancient hardware (Nvidia 5800 on a Pentium 1.8 with 256 RAM, with all the bells and whistles on... plus I run KDE ;)
Furthermore, many of the features I noted above are just beginning (except in the case of Macs) to be implemented in windowing systems. So, a good reason why you havn't seen the advancement is because you are living it.
The future of window compositing looks even cooler. Pixel shaded desktops with real-time lighting & particle generators, true 3d effects (wobbly windows is an example), amongst other things which havn't even been considered yet. Granted, large portions of the above are eye-candy, but even eye-candy can be but to good use when applied creatively.
I hope this was enlightening :)
"unless your MMPORG allows you to record/playback a demo, it would be impossible to make any meaningful comparisons between runs and/or different cards."
There is another solution: ask MMORPG manufacturers to provide a "real-world-like" testbench. I can think of 3 separate tests, off the top of my head.
- Test the rendering capabilities of a card. This would be similar to a 3d-mark test. It runs completely on 1 machine, and just tries to stress the hell out of the card.
- A "real world" test, where the testing app connects to an actual instance generated on a server. This way, you can see the effect on the entire computer (as well, of course, as your network connection).
- Another example could be to provide a "server" (really just an ordered packet generator) which you install on a separate system, and the testing app "connects to".
Or, we could stop using quantitative results, and instead go qualitative. I doubt that'll happen, though."Hahaha you're so funny"
I know. I thoght that too. He really is quite funny.
"Like, Windows has the 'blue screen of death', and you said 'the windows will go blue', like a blue windscreen of death!
Well, you didn't have to go ruining it for everyone else! Geez. The children are crying now.
"Really, you are the first person to ever make that joke comparing Windows crashing and cars crashing. Working in the 'blue screen' thing is really fucking witty. Honestly."
I sense sarcasm here. You should calm down. Cruise the relaxation highway. Find your cave. Take a chill pill. Get a load off. Take a ride on the cool train...
However, it's a pretty weak yes or no:
8. Is it permissible to accept a free copy of a computer game or program from a friend? Why or why not?
It's only weak if the sponsor for the badge is lax in his grading. There are equally valid reasons for both sides of the question. The question isn't looking for an answer. It's looking for a justification of the answer.
A scout is a lot of things. Trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent.
Seems to fit the bill to me. Then again, when I was back in the scouts, we really didn't follow anything. And I am proud to say that I almost made it to scout, after 6 years!
note: not really. I made it 1 badge short of star, and promptly lost interest.
What's next, a /. moderation merit badge?
What's the point? Noone would qualify.
I am a student at Drexel University (in Philly,PA), and our chapter of CircleK did the same stuff. I remember painting porches, replacing mulch, planting trees, clearing lots (etc, etc)... all for a neighborhood that was owned by a "slumlord". We were doing his dirtywork, and doing it for free.
I soon found myself quitting that organization
inevitably leads towards the treatment of others in the same manner. AKA. It could spread to become the treatment for crimes which do not warrant it.
The analogy was not comparing convicted criminals to Jews. It was noting that accepting the treatment of 1 "class" (don't know a better word for it) of people inevitably leads towards the accepted treatment of others.
I use the term by the vernacular, not the "true meaning, ala wikipedia".
The problem is the slippery slope, as I see it. It's easy to go down it, but hard to cut back.
That was what I was attempting to communicate, yes.
That should read First they came for the jews yadda yadda then they came for me because I like to bugger dead goats and no one complained. Mainly because once the neighbors found out, they thought it was really creepy...
The point I was trying to make was that it always starts with something acceptable to the populus at large. After that, the noose gets a little tighter each day.
So, It'll start with pedophiles, but it'll definitely grow to encompass other crimes once it's passed once.
Unless a politition who doesn't understand the technology decides the limits of the RFID "don't apply".
How did the saying go?
First they came for the Jews, and I didn't care, because I'm not a Jew. Then they came for the gays, and I didn't care, because I'm not gay. Then they came for the blacks, and I didn't care, because I'm not black. Then they came for me, and there was noone left to stop them.
Careful what you wish for.