You might want to tone down your insults. Furthermore, I took a look at http://www.pricewatch.com/syst... and prices are roughly double what you claimed. Next time please provide concrete links instead of insulting for the sake of insulting.
Actually, the prices I was quoting were for DDR3, not DDR4 so the problem is actually worse than you think.
Two years ago it was half that price.
Electronics prices are supposed to drop over time. When you compare current prices to 5 years ago there isn't much of a difference.
No one is talking about the elephant in the room: RAM prices are so high that you'd have to spend $700 to hit 64GB RAM (the max the board supports). That is just outrageous.
These prices are going to lead to a severe drop in demand.
It has not occurred to you that the hate directed towards Israel is a natural result of the actions the Israeli government has taken over the years? The wholesale slaughter, indeed genocide, of the Palestinian people? The high seas piracy they commit frequently with without consequence? The assassinations, the hit jobs, theft of land, war crimes, etc etc.
Don't create your anti-free speech stance entirely on your pro-Israel anti-Islam bigoted belief.
Not when most of the grievances are found to be factually incorrect (videos of deaths from Syria passed off as Jews killing Palestinians) and when "high sea piracy" is actually Israel intercepting ships from Iran to Gaza full of weapons.
Israel has made mistakes, like any other country has, but nothing that would justify terrorism against its civilians. Most of the animosity against it is based on false propaganda.
Oh geez.
Shouting "Kill the Jews!": protected speech unless they're seriously inciting imminent murder. Stupid and horrible, yes. Protected speech, yes.
Attacking a nearby synagogue: that would fall under assault and arresting people who are using violence is totally okay.
Speech doesn't hurt people. Violence does. Ban violence, not speech.
By allowing extremists to continue indoctrinating more people you are ensuring a never-ending conflict. You could do that, but it seems to me it would be much more efficient to nip the problem in the bud.
Also, we have a concrete example in Egypt and Jordan that this does not really work. The Egyptian and Jordanian street hates Israel (to the point they want war) yet the leaders do not. Most of this hate comes from indoctrination. The countries are practicing what you preach, which is to say they allow indoctrination to continue and only intervene with police forces in the last second.
The end result is that Egypt, Jordan and Israel has a frosty and every couple of months someone launches an attack from Egypt or Jordan on Israeli citizens. Sometimes they are caught, sometimes they are not
Anyway, I get the feeling this conversation will go on forever if we allow it. I guess we can agree to disagree for now. You brought up good points though. Thank you!
But what happens once we reach the ignorance -> fear -> hate -> violence cycle? What happens if someone taps into people's ignorance by spreading literature that taps into someone's ignorance about an ethnic group, leads to fear, hate and eventually violence?
Jedi you are not. Influence you must.
If we can prove that origin post was factually incorrect, it should be removed (not protected by Freedom of Speech) because it incites violence and is factually incorrect. If the person keeps on spreading this kind of hate speech then the person himself/herself should be penalized.
Some religions are provably incorrect with an uncanny habit of enumerating unsightly medieval barbarism within the pages of their holy texts. Texts having been continually leveraged to incite death, destruction and otherwise extend time honored traditions of barbarism throughout history.
Are you saying religion should be banned?
As big a fan of objective reality as I seem to be.. I still fully support the rights of people to believe things which are factually incorrect and to propagate their silly delusions without fear of persecution.
Do you have any idea what percentage of people who believe 9/11 was an inside job controlled demolition and all? How many think the Jews (e.g. Israel) did it? Are you going to prosecute everyone who posts anti-government "hate" because they happen to believe in a provable delusion?
If someone wants to believe all Asian people are alien grey's in disguises and warn everyone of the dangers... cook books and all... they should absolutely have that right.
There is simply no formulation by which freedom may exist without tolerance of the bullshit and asshattery of others.
If your religious text incites violence, and members of your religion act on those incitements, then yes I believe you need to censor such texts and disarm its followers.
To clarify: I'm not talking about the mainstream members of a given religion. I'm talking about the extremist elements (a subset of the total membership) which exist in every religious group today.
The various extremist sects of Islam are a prime example of this. Mainstream Islam is fine but Al-Qaeda, ISIS and friends are not. Their literature *should* be censored and their members *should* be disarmed. This is no different than the banning neo-nazi and terrorist groups around the world from running for government.
Pro-anonymity advocates have been saying for years that Freedom of Expression will fix all ills but we've seen a substantial rise of bullying, hate speech and terrorism-advocacy in the past decade. Saying that people will find the truth so long as it's out there, somewhere, does not seem to be working. Great in theory but doesn't work in practice.
Spoken like a true information war looser. It isn't working people are not being nice, they soak up conspiracy theories, don't listen to us or come to our conclusions... also everyone is turning into terrorists.. be afraid..... We can't beat them in the market place of ideas so we'll just shut their asses down.
Saying that people will find the truth so long as it's out there, somewhere, does not seem to be working.
What do we call states which leverage their monopoly on violence to control public opinion or otherwise help them to "find the truth"?
The "marketplace of ideas" is driven by popularity and money, not by truth. It's much easier to blame other people for your problems than looking in the mirror and taking personal responsibility for your failures. How do you combat that? Historically speaking, combating it with ideas alone has always failed.
You disregard all the harm that anonymity causes online, from bullying, to hate speech, to terrorism.
No, I don't. Anything could be abused, but it's 100% anti-freedom to say it should be banned merely because of that. These are not legitimate concerns. Freedom is more important than safety.
I never said it should be banned. I saying there are legitimate concerns with the current system and those problems should be tackled.
but the statue quo is not sustainable.
It is and has been sustainable. There is no "middle ground" which doesn't violate people's privacy and speech rights, which makes any such "middle ground" 100% unacceptable. Why not move to North Korea?
Right, so implying the system is not perfect is grounds for shipping me to North Korea? Jumping the gun a little...?
Stop being lazy. The situation is not black or white. There are solutions in the middle.
Words have an impact.
In the case of bullying it has led to multiple deaths. In the case of terrorist advocacy, it has led to repeated violent/racist protests that has led to countless people getting hurt and in some cases dying. No one should have the right to advocate violence against all members of an ethnic group. Just look at what's happening in France.
The thing is that not allowing people to speak their mind leads to everyone living in fear. Bullying will happen to some extent, and I think real life is way way more important than the internet.
There are also loads of things that are worth some deaths. I'm not saying that this is one, but the ability to live free of the government controlling every part of my life is one. A million kids having lots more fun, and one dying, is a good trade off in my opinion.
I think we're talking about different things.
You're talking about people being afraid to criticize their own government. I'm fine with protecting such criticism as Freedom of Speech.
But what happens once we reach the ignorance -> fear -> hate -> violence cycle? What happens if someone taps into people's ignorance by spreading literature that taps into someone's ignorance about an ethnic group, leads to fear, hate and eventually violence?
If we can prove that origin post was factually incorrect, it should be removed (not protected by Freedom of Speech) because it incites violence and is factually incorrect. If the person keeps on spreading this kind of hate speech then the person himself/herself should be penalized.
On a slightly related topic, we should have zero tolerance for online bullying. The sooner we out such posters (remove their anonymity) the sooner this will stop. Right now a lot of online bullying goes unpunished because it's too hard to track people down. If the children posting the malicious content were identifiable they would not do it.
When people attack synagogues.... that's against the law, already. When people actually encourage people to kill Jews, that's already against the law. I'm not sure how them being anonymous or not online would affect the attack on the synagogue.
Very, very few people are actually anonymous online now. It's pretty easy to track most people down.
If what you say is true, then I don't disagree. In my experience, every time I flag an online discussion/video as hate speech nothing gets done. Some of the examples I flagged went along the lines of "Fuck all X. We should bring back the gas chambers." If organizations like Facebook/Youtube actually enforced the law then I would have no problem with it. However, I'm not sure such a law really exists. In any case, they seem to be hiding behind Freedom of Speech and never removing such posts. I've also seen videos that were taken from Syria, posted online as if they were Jews murdering Gazans. I can prove that the video is a fake and that the poster is trying to spread hate against Jews but the service provider refuses to remove it.
So yes, if we could legally enforce the fact that such posts/videos must be legally removed (enforced as stringently as the DCMA) then I'd have no problem with anonymity.
There is far more at work there than words though. If I shout "kill the Jews" where I am, no one is going to go kill Jews. The people that do go attack them are not acting on my words, they are acting on their own hatred. When you make an act of violence towards someone else, you are responsible for that. I don't care if someone tells me to go punch some dude in the face, if I go punch the guy that is on me.
Hitler employed propaganda videos because they worked. Terrorist groups employ propaganda videos because they work. The fact of the matter is that some videos equal indoctrination; people would not have become extremist if they were constantly bombarded by these messages in the media.
By the time someone throws a punch it's too late. Take a look at the kind of violence that took place in France and ask yourself: how many protesters committed violence versus how many were arrested. The fact of the matter is, there are many more people doing the indoctrination and violence attacks than getting arrested. If the police were arresting 100% of people committing violence then it would be a different story. These protests are growing, not shrinking.
For speech to result in physical attacks - a strong causal connection - that's no longer hate speech, that's "incitement to riot". We've had no problem keeping "hate speech" legal but "incitement to riot" illegal in America for centuries now.
Speech should always be protected as speech. But telling your bodyguard to shoot someone is not illegal because of the words you use, but instead because of the immediate desired outcome of that speech. Running on a platform of killing all the Jews is political speech, and should be protected (and for goodness sake, please oh please let the candidate actually say that sort of thing on camera, not keep it as a secret agenda, so that democracy can happen properly there). Saying "hey, lets go attack that guy right there, right now!" has never been protected speech.
"On a computer" changes nothing.
No one is that dumb. You will be hard pressed to find direct/immediate causality between repeated demonization against ethnic groups and the subsequent violence protests that ensue. But there is also no denying that when people post videos that incite hate against ethnic groups, coupled with a caption that says "Fucking Jews!" it tends to have a real effect. I just saw a video spread on Facebook that claimed to show Israeli soldiers burying Palestinian children alive with exactly that caption. Now, the soldiers in question were not Israeli (the Jordanian flag on the uniform kind of gave that away) but most of the viewers did not catch on. The video received over 1,500 shares with 1,200 comments to the effect of "Jewish bloodsuckers, we should end them". So sure, I can't count how many of the people who viewed this video went on to commit violence against Jews. But I can guess many of them were negatively affected and a sizable portion of them went out to protest, and a portion of them turned to violence.
It's no coincidence that Hitler employed a strong propaganda campaign. If this kind of crap didn't work, he wouldn't have bothered. We need to admit that words, photos and videos make a difference and do lead to increased racism and eventually physical violence. We need to find a way to balance these concerns with Freedom of Speech.
The people on the receiving end of said hate speech would disagree
So you claim to speak for all people who are 'victims' of hate speech?
Furthermore, that's nothing more than an ad hominem attack; a fallacy. "You're not a victim of hate speech, so all of your arguments are invalid." Someone's arguments stand on their own merit, and whether or not they've had hate speech directed at them has nothing to do with whether their arguments are valid.
I'm not saying your argument is invalid, nor should you imply mine is. I'm saying that there are legitimate concerns on both sides and it is wrong for pro-Anonymity proponents to dismiss the other point of view out of hand. There are legitimate concerns about how Freedom of Speech is abused to spread hate against a visible ethnic groups which, in some instances, has led to violence.
You might disagree with how we should tackle this problem, but you shouldn't dismiss the problem exists altogether. I look forward to suggestions on how we can tackle these problems.
"Here's something to think about: How come you never see a headline like `Psychic Wins Lottery.'" -- Comedian Jay Leno
