• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • Hey Guest. Check out the NeoGAF 2.2 Update Thread for details on our new Giphy integration and other new features.

An ACTUAL attack on Free Speech is currently underway by the US Government

Dunki

Member
Oct 24, 2017
8,248
8,889
790
The makeup of the employees is irrelevant, it's about the position of the company itself.
The position would be in Israel sill no reason to boycott If you are against Israel boycott the government but not businesses from Israel.

Also BDS is highly antisemtic which makes it even more clear. They just do not like these "filthy jewish people"
 
Last edited:
Dec 3, 2018
3,255
6,317
685
Jesus Christ, ConnorDuffy1977. You posted three posts in the time it took me to write a single line response to one of them. Maybe spend a little more time thinking and creating a good argument rather than just a thousand posts that basically equate to “*rolls eys*”. Real debates deserve actual conversation.
 
Jun 26, 2018
2,219
1,423
385
Milwaukee, WI
Jesus Christ, ConnorDuffy1977. You posted three posts in the time it took me to write a single line response to one of them. Maybe spend a little more time thinking and creating a good argument rather than just a thousand posts that basically equate to “*rolls eys*”. Real debates deserve actual conversation.

Maybe cry a little more?
 

ssolitare

Manbaby: The Member
Jan 12, 2009
17,120
2,017
1,180
Yeah, that's what we're saying. BDS was born out of antisemitism and hatred by Muslims who want death to Israel.

Why on Earth would you join them?

Stop making assumptions, and stick to the point. It seems that we hit our peak, good luck.
 

cryptoadam

Banned
Feb 21, 2018
24,155
51,431
1,215
It does matter. And what position did SodaStream have that caused it to be boycotted? Be honest.

It employed Jews in Israel. That was the crime.

SodaStreams CEO

In 2013, Shimon Peres, Israel’s then-president, invited him to Jerusalem to receive the country’s Outstanding Exporter Award. Birnbaum brought three of his Arab workers, including Bsharat—but as they entered the presidential residence, the SodaStream employees were taken aside and strip searched by Israeli security. Birnbaum was apoplectic and demanded to be stripped to his briefs, too. (The guards declined.) At the ceremony, with TV cameras rolling, Birnbaum turned and confronted Peres in Hebrew. “This thing,” he said, “clarified for me, Mr. President, the importance of asking a greater question than the question of export. And this is: How do we treat each other as human beings?” For Birnbaum, it was a high-profile opportunity to remind the world of his zeal for peace and his dismay about how Israel treats Palestinians.

The only thing BDS did to SodaStream was cost Palestinians 500 well paying jobs. SodaStream was a place where Jews and Arabs worked together and could forge ties and work towards peace. The CEO is PRO-PALESTINIAN. But that doesn't stop BDS. SodaStream is doing great, they even want to open a factory in Gaza.

Things could bubble up in Gaza soon, as Soda-Stream CEO Daniel Birnbaum announced plans on Thursday to open a manufacturing facility in Gaza.

“We want the people in Gaza to have jobs, real jobs, because where there is prosperity there can be peace,” Birnbaum said, on day two of the Globes Business Conference in Jerusalem.

Pro-Palestinian, gives good paying jobs to Palestinians, wants peace, so whats the response ? Boycott and disparage the company.

What I find ironic is all the people crying about not being able to BDS are the same people who want to kill/doxxx/punch a kid who wears a MAGA hat. So they cry their crocodile tears about their rights, but then think anyone in a MAGA hat are racist and deserve negative consequences.

Israel is like the MAGA hat to the world. Facts/Truth/Logic go out the window and leftist get triggered. Just look how they react to MAGA hats and you will see its the same way they react to Israel.
 
Jun 26, 2018
2,219
1,423
385
Milwaukee, WI
What I find ironic is all the people crying about not being able to BDS are the same people who want to kill/doxxx/punch a kid who wears a MAGA hat. So they cry their crocodile tears about their rights, but then think anyone in a MAGA hat are racist and deserve negative consequences.

Nail on the head.
 

Nobody_Important

“Aww, it’s so...average,” she said to him in a cold brick of passion
May 22, 2018
10,817
17,041
830
SodaStreams CEO



The only thing BDS did to SodaStream was cost Palestinians 500 well paying jobs. SodaStream was a place where Jews and Arabs worked together and could forge ties and work towards peace. The CEO is PRO-PALESTINIAN. But that doesn't stop BDS. SodaStream is doing great, they even want to open a factory in Gaza.



Pro-Palestinian, gives good paying jobs to Palestinians, wants peace, so whats the response ? Boycott and disparage the company.

What I find ironic is all the people crying about not being able to BDS are the same people who want to kill/doxxx/punch a kid who wears a MAGA hat. So they cry their crocodile tears about their rights, but then think anyone in a MAGA hat are racist and deserve negative consequences.

Israel is like the MAGA hat to the world. Facts/Truth/Logic go out the window and leftist get triggered. Just look how they react to MAGA hats and you will see its the same way they react to Israel.

Go to google and type in "Israel Human Rights Violations". Educate yourself.


That's all I have left to say until we get more information from Congress and the Courts. Hopefully though the courts will continue to stop this crap for all our sakes.
 
Last edited:

weltalldx

Member
Feb 25, 2017
384
479
230
I believe I've called him out on that behavior is well. It doesn't matter where you stand on matters, calling other posters racist or antisemites is not appropriate nor helpful.


Actually, I think you'll find that it is. Anti-discrimination laws are limited to a very few select places (hiring practices, for example), but beyond that, it's absolutely protected speech. It's why neo-nazis can walk through cities with tiki torches chanting obscene things. I feel like we just had this exact conversation and the exact same defenses are coming up, despite being proven to be worthless the last four or five times. Is this where the NPC meme comes from?

You'll also have to explain something to me. This law punished boycott of the country of Israel - a country is a political body, not a race. If this law were about discrimination, it would specifically protect Jews, but it doesn't. It protect Israel. I can think of many reasons why someone who has no issues at all with the Jewish faith or race might take issue with Israel's politics and decisions on the world stage (and their power and influence of the US), so how specifically does this law target discrimination?

For instance, the US is giving $38 billion to Israel over the next 10 years. Someone did the math and that comes out to something like $30k per Israeli citizen, per year. That kind of money could make a huge difference to rebuilding our crumbling transportation infrastructure, increase our security against outside threat, support the healthcare needs of an aging populace, or supporting the arts and sciences - and near as I can tell, we are giving this money to Israel with no strings attached. We're just giving it to them. For free.

Now, if I had a problem with that, is that antisemetism? And if I said so someplace public like Twitter, Facebook, or even here, do you think the government should not do business with me as a way to financially punish me for my speech?

This is a troll post right? Discrimination against protected class is illegal in pretty much all faucet of society. From employment, to housing, to commerce, there is a very clear line that discrimination is unacceptable. You don't seem to understand that discrimination and bias for two very different thing, one involves an act, the other a mindset. Our laws don't punish people for having hateful thought, if that was the case, everyone of the SJW would be jailed. It does punish people for discrimination, which involves an unfair act that was prejudicial against protected classes.

The reason why white supremacy rallies are allow is the same reason why feminist/black power rallies are allowed. A mindset is allowed by law, an act is not.
 

cryptoadam

Banned
Feb 21, 2018
24,155
51,431
1,215
No one knows the politics of an individual employee, so you can't make a decision on them.

Sodasteam was a boycott against the government. The employees don't matter.

SodaStreams ceo is pro peace, stands up for Palistinan rights, and even though his company was boycotted still wants to create jobs for Palestinians. And the BDS of SodaStream didn't stop the company, but it did cost 500 Palestinians well paying jobs, better paying then in Palestine.

But most who support BDS don't care that it hurts palestinians more. 500 Palestinan jobs are worth it amrite?

And BTW SodaStream stock is at an ATH right now at 143.00.
 

ssolitare

Manbaby: The Member
Jan 12, 2009
17,120
2,017
1,180
I know I have to go slow for you, but that IS the fucking point.

BDS is a movement started by hatred and the desire to see Israel ceasing to exist.

BDS is irrelevant to my point. I don't care about them.

This goes back to you saying that because you boycott the Israel government, or a company with a political stance, it means that you are anti-sementic, and are racist because the bulk of employees comprise of a particular race. That is all. I'm glad you can acknowledge that is not the case.
 

cryptoadam

Banned
Feb 21, 2018
24,155
51,431
1,215
Go to google and type in "Israel Human Rights Violations". Educate yourself.


That's all I have left to say until we get more information from Congress and the Courts. Hopefully though the courts will continue to stop this crap for all our sakes.

You need to educate yourself and not fall for the MSM lies like the MAGA hat story. I am plenty educated on Israel.

Stick to SodaStream, what rights was SodaStream violating by giving 500 Palestinians good paying jobs? Oh right BDS don't care about actual Palestinians, just destroying Israel.

Why Boycott a guy who is Pro-Palestinian, wants Palestinians to be treated as equals, puts his money where his mouth is and employes 100's of them? Birnbaum and SodaStream have done more for Palestinians than any BDSer will ever do in their lives. What kind of movement is that?

But because its a Jewish owned business its open season on it. Just like to leftist wearing a MAGA hat is open season on them.
 

Bill O'Rights

Seldom posts. Always delivers.
Staff Member
Dec 5, 2017
393
2,933
625


Ok, you each got one off, and took one on the chin. All in good spirits now. Let's not descend into report trading. Keep it civil with less invectives folks.
 

Nobody_Important

“Aww, it’s so...average,” she said to him in a cold brick of passion
May 22, 2018
10,817
17,041
830

You realize that literally anyone can gather abunch of similar links to throw at the Democrats or the Republicans right? Hell David Duke IS a Republican.


You are cherry-picking in order to try and prove a point. The same can be done for pretty much any other politically charged movement or boycott.
 
Last edited:

cryptoadam

Banned
Feb 21, 2018
24,155
51,431
1,215
You realize that literally anyone can gather abunch of similar links to throw at the Democrats or the Republicans right? Hell David Duke IS a Republican.


You are cherry-picking in order to try and prove a point. The same can be done for pretty much any other politically charged movement or boycott.

I can find a lot larger list.

But its up to people to decide if they want to follow a movement that is full of antisemitism/Nazi's/terrorist, just remember the company you keep.
 

oagboghi2

Member
Apr 15, 2018
11,751
19,840
705
Go to google and type in "Israel Human Rights Violations". Educate yourself.


That's all I have left to say until we get more information from Congress and the Courts. Hopefully though the courts will continue to stop this crap for all our sakes.
You keep equating BDS with criticizing the Israeli government. This is a false choice.
 

7echnicolor

Member
May 19, 2010
2,034
184
690
Super unconstitutional, but you're not gonna catch the alt-right snowflake 'free speech' babies standing up and making themselves heard for this one.

I'll keep supporting BDS as long as I can.
 

OSC

Member
Jun 16, 2018
3,628
3,446
515
Super unconstitutional, but you're not gonna catch the alt-right snowflake 'free speech' babies standing up and making themselves heard for this one.

I'll keep supporting BDS as long as I can.
YHWH has connections. Did you forget what happened last time people got on his wrong side?
 
Dec 3, 2018
3,255
6,317
685
This is a troll post right? Discrimination against protected class is illegal in pretty much all faucet of society. From employment, to housing, to commerce, there is a very clear line that discrimination is unacceptable.
It's only illegal in a few places, actually. It's against policy in a lot of businesses, but there's only a few federal anti-discrimination laws on the books, and they are very limited. There's more aggressive anti-discrimination laws at the state level, though how aggressive seems to be directly linked to what color the state turns during elections. There are states where I can discriminate against gay people freely.

I should also point out that anti-discrimination laws only go back to 1964 - still in living memory for a lot of adults, and still within the trial phase of sweeping social change. And I think there's a lot of problems with these laws that are becoming more and more evident over time, and people in general are turning against them - maybe not in terms of their goals, but certainly in terms of their implementation. There is a constant battle between individual rights and anti-discrimination laws, and generally speaking, when contested, individual rights usually win out. For instance, just recently the Supreme Court ruled that a bakery didn't have to bake a cake for a gay wedding because religious views against same sex marriage are protected by the first amendment, and that creating such a cake against their beliefs would constitute compelled speech.

You don't seem to understand that discrimination and bias for two very different thing, one involves an act, the other a mindset. Our laws don't punish people for having hateful thought, if that was the case, everyone of the SJW would be jailed. It does punish people for discrimination, which involves an unfair act that was prejudicial against protected classes.
And you don't seem to understand that compelled speech is a thing that has been expressly forbidden under the US constitution. The government can not force you to say something you don't want to say, or support something you don't support, or not support something you want to support. For instance, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby when they didn't want to pay for health care that included contraceptives.

The reason why white supremacy rallies are allow is the same reason why feminist/black power rallies are allowed. A mindset is allowed by law, an act is not.
How is a rally not an act? The fact is, the distinction is rarely made when it comes to free speech issues because it has been repeatedly ruled that the first amendment covers acts as well. The first amendment isn't just explicitly about speech (though it is easier to defend speech and religious acts), and instead represents a freedom of ideas by which the government can not limit the expression of these ideas except where such things represent a danger to others. Please explain to me how a boycott of Israeli businesses is a danger to anybody.
 

cryptoadam

Banned
Feb 21, 2018
24,155
51,431
1,215
More BDS fails



Isreals foreign investment has more than tripled since BDS tried to claim a victory in 2014 because of the drop from 2013.

Keep on supporting BDS, it doesn't hurt Israel, but it does hurt Palestinians though. 500 jobs lost at SodaStream but I guess you gotta break a few eggs to make an omlete amrite?

Meanwhile a Lorde concert is cancelled YAAAA! while OTOH Israel's economy keeps going up up up.
 

OSC

Member
Jun 16, 2018
3,628
3,446
515
instead represents a freedom of ideas by which the government can not limit the expression of these ideas except where such things represent a danger to others
yet though ideas are fundamental truths of the world, that no one can truly own. The right to share and copy ideas, the idea of copyright was born.

But if one person wants to share an idea with another, in the privacy of their homes, with their own private property as medium, who are they to say it is wrong and illegal? Two individuals who consent, and are using inanimate matter to interact, cannot possibly truly injure others through the free exchange of ideas, of thoughts between them. At least the exchange of truths should improve the world not worsen it. The fundamental right of speech is being hindered for the profit of intermediaries. Perhaps some form of compensation could be given were it a profit venture, or some advertising revenue, but to bar people from speech, from sharing?
oh okay that's weird lol. idk wtf that has to do with my post.
Many on the right take it that God literally exists, the second coming of Jesus will be soon, and we must not get on God's bad side. In fact some would say our fundamental rights are not innate but God given.
 
Last edited:
Dec 3, 2018
3,255
6,317
685
yet though ideas are fundamental truths of the world, that no one can truly own. The right to share and copy ideas, the idea of copyright was born.
Copyrights are a different discussion altogether. The basic premise that copying something is not an expression of an idea. Generally speaking, copyright was originally designed to protect the innovative works of people, allowing them to profit from the value their ideas have, but have been corrupted along the way (as all things apparently must) such that you have people using copyright strikes to remove ideas from public discourse. It's a fustercluck, to be sure.

But if one person wants to share an idea with another, in the privacy of their homes, with their own private property as medium, who are they to say it is wrong and illegal? Two individuals who consent, and are using inanimate matter to interact, cannot possibly truly injure others through the free exchange of ideas, of thoughts between them. At least the exchange of truths should improve the world not worsen it. The fundamental right of speech is being hindered for the profit of intermediaries. Perhaps some form of compensation could be given were it a profit venture, or some advertising revenue, but to bar people from speech, from sharing?
I agree with the basic nature of copyrights - that is, to protected the value of someone's idea from those that would exploit it. And generally speaking, copyrights do have limitations in places where it would interfere with the free expression of ideas (free use has clauses for educational use, transformative works, and the like) that should be fairly effective at keeping copyrights honest, but like I said, it has been corrupted over time (*cough*disney*cough*) and I think a few additional limitations are called for. But I'm never going to agree that you should be able to pirate Microsoft Word because of the first amendment.

In fact some would say our fundamental rights are not innate but God given.
The Constitution actually says this. We are not given the right of free speech, but rather our right to free speech is innate and God given and thus the first amendment protects this right from the government. I don't necessarily agree with the concept of a God, but I do agree with this interpretation of our rights. The appeal to a high power is just there to make sure that government is always second place to some universal truth or understanding that government is too subjected to.
 

CatLady

Member
Jun 12, 2018
4,156
13,537
670
Someone correct me if I m mistaken, there's a lot of text in he OP, but it looks to me that public/private enterprises are to be compelled to do business with Israel or lose Federal funding. If that is the case I feel it is an infringement of 1A.
 

infinitys_7th

Gold Member
Oct 1, 2006
12,320
22,352
1,885
I would call the Government threatening a company with loss of profits and employees being fired a hell of a punishment.

If only you had this same perspective when it came to broader society. But props regardless.

Would you also disagree with the government denying contracts on the basis of a company being openly critical of modern feminism?
 

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Jun 26, 2007
44,904
17,302
1,770
Best Coast
Have there been any polls taken on whether

A. The American public actually cares about this

B. That the public wishes them to spend time with legislation on this relative to other pressing issues

?
 

cryptoadam

Banned
Feb 21, 2018
24,155
51,431
1,215
Someone correct me if I m mistaken, there's a lot of text in he OP, but it looks to me that public/private enterprises are to be compelled to do business with Israel or lose Federal funding. If that is the case I feel it is an infringement of 1A.

They aren't compelled to do anything, just that they cannot support BDS. So no one is being forced. If you want to engage in BDS then you can't get federal funding. You could probably get funding from KKK or Nazi's or Farakhan if you want because they would all support BDS.

Its the governments money and they find BDS is antisemetic and discriminatory so they don't want anyone using their funds engaging in it. When you get funding from somewhere it usually has some sort of conditions.
 

OSC

Member
Jun 16, 2018
3,628
3,446
515
But I'm never going to agree that you should be able to pirate Microsoft Word because of the first amendment.
Pirate? Given no copyright, the source would be analyzed and it would be reversed engineered and improved a thousand fold. yet fully compatible with pre-existing documents. In fact any attempt by MS to distinguish by introducing incompatibilities would only cause them total failure.

We are about to get true ai in the coming decades. We already know that given time and effort our bests artists can essentially replicate any work or reinterpret it in a thousand different ways. That effort will soon be automatable.

You've seen deep fakes? For example the Nicholas cage ones? That's the first efforts. Eventually not just face but height, voice, everything will be editable into a movie. Any actor or actors real or fictional made to star in any movie or movies.

Have you seen the DNN GAN remakes of backgrounds and textures in things like Final Fantasy or Max Payne? Eventually remakes in 2d, 3d, photoreal, cg, anime, etc will be easily producible, as well as tons of fan fiction.

The need of copyright to foster innovation, is coming to an end, as we each will have the power for unlimited innovation, unless hindered by the copyright minefield.
 
Dec 3, 2018
3,255
6,317
685
They aren't compelled to do anything, just that they cannot support BDS.
They aren't compelled to do anything except they are compelled to do this one thing?

So no one is being forced.
They are being punished if they don't. That falls under the abridging of free speech and has been found REPEATEDLY to be unconstitutional - you know, the constitution? The thing which explicitly says that congress shall make no laws abridging the expression of speech? It's kind of a big deal.

You could probably get funding from KKK or Nazi's or Farakhan if you want because they would all support BDS.
What the fuck is wrong with you? Do you want to have a discussion about this or do you want to overtly imply everyone who disagrees with you is on the same level as the KKK or the Nazis? I could give a damn if you think everybody in the world but you is racist, but at least make an effort to join the discussion rather than just walk in, take a shit on the floor, and make the rest of us work around your pungent contribution.

Its the governments money and they find BDS is antisemetic and discriminatory so they don't want anyone using their funds engaging in it. When you get funding from somewhere it usually has some sort of conditions.
The FIRST and most important rule of our government is that those conditions can not be dependent on the expression of free speech. Whether you think it is right or not doesn't mean shit. It's unconstitutional. Period.

In the Supreme Court case Cole v Richardson, the court put forth four conditions which are needed for a loyalty oath to remain constitutional - which I quote here in their entirety:

- We have made clear that neither federal nor state government may condition employment on taking oaths that impinge on rights guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments respectively, as for example those relating to political beliefs.

- Nor may employment be conditioned on an oath that one has not engaged, or will not engage, in protected speech activities such as the following: criticizing institutions of government; discussing political doctrine that approves the overthrow of certain forms of government; and supporting candidates for political office.

- Employment may not be conditioned on an oath denying past, or abjuring future, associational activities within constitutional protection; such protected activities include membership in organizations having illegal purposes unless one knows of the purpose and shares a specific intent to promote the illegal purpose.

- And, finally, an oath may not be so vague that ” `men of common intelligence *681 must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application, [because such an oath] violates the first essential of due process of law.’ ” Cramp v. Board of Public Instruction, 368 U. S., at 287. Concern for vagueness in the oath cases has been especially great because uncertainty as to an oath’s meaning may deter individuals from engaging in constitutionally protected activity conceivably within the scope of the oath.

Now tell me which part of this loyalty oath doesn't violate all four? It's too vague and reaching, it punishes people for antisemetism regardless of whether they are knowingly engaging in it, employment is conditional on people not engaging in protected speech activities such as criticizing institutions of government, and it impinges on people's rights guaranteed by the First Amendment.
 
Dec 3, 2018
3,255
6,317
685
Pirate? Given no copyright, the source would be analyzed and it would be reversed engineered and improved a thousand fold. yet fully compatible with pre-existing documents. In fact any attempt by MS to distinguish by introducing incompatibilities would only cause them total failure.
Look, I believe all software should be open source. I think the greatest strides we've made in the progress of computing happened precisely because of that and these bullshit licenses have been a blight on progress and have resulted in the destruction of the computer-based ecosystem. But that's a different issue from copyrights. That's a choice that I wish more people would make, not something I feel the need to inflict upon the unwilling.

You've seen deep fakes? For example the Nicholas cage ones? That's the first efforts. Eventually not just face but height, voice, everything will be editable into a movie. Any actor or actors real or fictional made to star in any movie or movies.
It's obvious that computers will change what is possible and make things that seem immoral and impossible into trivial button pushes. And I think the US government has been corrupted by corporate interests to the point where any legislation that comes out to protect anybody, the wrong people will be protected and for the wrong reasons. Still not sure what this has to do with copyrights.

The need of copyright to foster innovation, is coming to an end, as we each will have the power for unlimited innovation, unless hindered by the copyright minefield.
I don't think so. Computers will be very good at a lot of things, but when it comes down it, its output will be judged entirely by humans. People will look at the output and go, "I like this" or "I don't like this", and the computers will generate output based on that - probably crowd sourced from millions of people. But innovation comes from one person saying "I like this anyway" when nobody else will. Innovation is an exercise of an individual's will and since computers don't have an individual will, all they can create are the expression of a collective will. A single smart, weird person will create things that computers can not, and if anything, it will mean innovation is even more important in the future because only humans will be capable of doing it.

Look, I agree that our concept of copyright needs a lot of work and with the way computers are changing things, it will require a complete overhaul for a new world. But we aren't in a post-copyright world yet and I'd like to focus on fixing copyright law rather than throwing it out because we may not need it someday in the distant future.
 

OSC

Member
Jun 16, 2018
3,628
3,446
515
A single smart, weird person will create things that computers can not, and if anything, it will mean innovation is even more important in the future because only humans will be capable of doing it.
We will see, that runs counter to the belief that strong ai is possible, a machine that can do anything a human can as good as or better than any human.

We know that for example take a 2GB file, it could be a movie, a song, a book, a game, etc. There are a finite number of such files. There are a finite number of 4k images, a finite number of 10min long mp3 files, etc. A finite number of 2 hour videos. The rest is just repetitiousness of this finite set. Large but finite.

Given enough computation even unintelligent algorithms will generate all. Intelligence should allow quality content to be distilled with a minute amount of computation.
 
Dec 3, 2018
3,255
6,317
685
We know that for example take a 2GB file, it could be a movie, a song, a book, a game, etc. There are a finite number of such files. There are a finite number of 4k images, a finite number of 10min long mp3 files, etc. A finite number of 2 hour videos. The rest is just repetitiousness of this finite set. Large but finite.
Not just large, astronomical. You're basically talking about the infinite monkeys Shakespeare thing, and even if you had a way to intellectually judge every piece of output, the amount of time required to process all of them would take eons. For instance, it would take a computer 31 years to count to 1 trillion, and we're talking about several orders of magnitude more work and more iterations.

Assuming it was possible to do this (remember that computers are also limited by the speed of light, so there is a literal maximum to how fast they can go as well), it won't be at any point in your lifetime or the lifetimes of your great, great grandchildren. And then the computer will just pump out "42" and everybody will just be like, "wha?"

Given enough computation even unintelligent algorithms will generate all. Intelligence should allow quality content to be distilled with a minute amount of computation.
I think there is a lot of things that computer will be generating for us in my lifetime, but I feel pretty confident that I'll still be about a billion times more creative than even the best of them. We aren't racing steam engines just yet, John Henry.
 

OSC

Member
Jun 16, 2018
3,628
3,446
515
I think there is a lot of things that computer will be generating for us in my lifetime, but I feel pretty confident that I'll still be about a billion times more creative than even the best of them. We aren't racing steam engines just yet, John Henry.
Unless the wolfram hypothesis of computational equivalence turns out to be true and we find algorithms in the brain and algorithmic reasons for differences in creativity.
 

cryptoadam

Banned
Feb 21, 2018
24,155
51,431
1,215
They aren't compelled to do anything except they are compelled to do this one thing?

Can you compelle someone on a negative? If you HAD to support BDS that would be compelling someone to do something. Not boycotting is taking no action, you aren't being asked to do anything.
 
Dec 3, 2018
3,255
6,317
685
Can you compelle someone on a negative? If you HAD to support BDS that would be compelling someone to do something. Not boycotting is taking no action, you aren't being asked to do anything.
The government can not make you support something you don't want to support, not support something you want to support, force you to speak where you would like to remain silent, or make you be silent on matters with which you would speak against.
 

cryptoadam

Banned
Feb 21, 2018
24,155
51,431
1,215
The government can not make you support something you don't want to support, not support something you want to support, force you to speak where you would like to remain silent, or make you be silent on matters with which you would speak against.

So then don't ask for money from the government and you are free to do whatever you want. This only has to do with federal funding. If Farakhan or David Duke wants to give you a million dollars to Boycott SodaStream you are free to do so. But if you want a million dollars from the feds then you will have to follow their rules attached to the money they are giving you.

The government thinks that BDS is antisemitic and they don't want to support it with their money. As a citizen no one is compelling you to take federal funding. If your prinicpals are that to support an antisemitic movement that seeks the destruction of the Jewish state put your money where you mouth is and put your principals above your job and make an actual sacrifice. If 500 Palestinians have to lose their job because of BDS then whats the problem with some American's joining along with them? Whats good for Palestinians should be good for Americans too?

(not talking about you personally when I say you, I mean people in general, please don't mistake it for meaning specifically YOU)
 

KINGMOKU

Member
May 16, 2005
8,387
7,538
1,710
I just don't see the issue on how this infringes on free speech. Would you support a government ban on purchases from companies that support white supremacy? If you say yes, then you are a hypocrite.
This right here is the crux of the matter with NI. I also happen to believe that the government has no place whatsoever in determining what people say, or think.

Nobody is so disingenuous with his rhetoric this thread has collapsed under his own hypocrisy.

Sad. Could have had a good discussion about this law had a level headed member posted about it.

With NI its turned onto everyone throwing mirrors at him.
 

epicnemesis

Member
May 9, 2008
1,732
3,194
1,185
It finally happened. Nobody Important and I agree on a position. This is ludicrous and I don’t understand how people are waiving this off.
Let me ask: Would this happen to a boycott on literally any other country?