A reasonably tasteful choice; Pol Pot or the recent Yugoslav despots
can match 'em for malice and grisliness (and, going back further, one
might also cite the Young Turks responsible for the expulsion and
massacre of the Armenians during World War I) but those three have no
competition (aside from each other) in terms of sheer body count.
That quote in particular, though, has a very interesting history ---
particularly in the light of subsequent events. The "hundred flowers"
campaign of the early '60s encouraged voices not in harmony with the
government line to come forth, when people with those views might
otherwise have kept quiet. In the subsequent cultural revolution,
those people were hunted down ruthlessly --- after having been
encouraged by the government to identify themselves. The campaign, in
short, was a monstrous deception, and the pretense of tolerance that
it embodied was pure sham.
Now, why on earth is this showing up in a Microsoft publication?
PS: Some delayed business from last week. Phil Hallam-Baker supplies
the following analysis of the DEC antitrust business:
He thinks DEC is perfectly aware that their antitrust threat
doesn't have much hope at all (and, for that reason, is unlikely
to draw more than a polite brush-off from the Department of
Justice, let alone divert them from more promising
However, Intel will still have to say *something* in court to get
the charges dismissed, and that would probably involve Intel
claiming in open court that AMD and Cyrix do in fact make
equivalent products to their own. DEC may see some advantage to
having Intel make that claim, particularly if they are
considering a closer relationship with, say, AMD.
I'm not sure I believe this completely, but it does at least
supply a rational reason for the Digital antitrust threat, which
leaves me otherwise... perplexed.