Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×

Comment: Re:One thing for sure (Score 1) 506

by SillyHamster (#49151285) Attached to: Machine Intelligence and Religion

They can subjectively point to their history, as there is no supporting evidence that these conversations ever took place. No evidence at all. Conviction is not evidence.

So do you want to argue that the religious group that follows Jesus has a problem where they need to explain why the creator refuses to communicate with his creation?

So even though they believe that Jesus was God incarnate, the creator interacting personally with creation; that this represents an absent creator they need an explanation for?

The documented history and the teachings objectively exist, and objectively state certain dogmas. That aspect is not subjective at all. You may not believe that it is true, but that does not justify misinterpreting what a given religious group actually believes, or what challenges go with it.

Comment: Re:Clear Channel (Score 1) 612

by SillyHamster (#49148655) Attached to: FCC Approves Net Neutrality Rules

In a broader sense, Windows monopolizes the users of the large set of applications that are exclusive to Win32.

And MS has a government granted monopoly on Windows due to copyright.

So what?

If cellular weren't a cartel, then how could all four cellular carriers get away with raising pay-as-you-go texting rates at the same time?

I'm not arguing cellular is/is not a cartel.

I am arguing that natural monopolies do not naturally become monopolies. However, people do like to propose monopolies as the "best/most efficient" solution for "natural monopoly" situations.

Given how much people apparently hate cable companies and their municipal monopolies, perhaps we should revisit the assumption that "natural monopolies" are best served with an actual monopoly.

Comment: Re:One thing for sure (Score 1) 506

by SillyHamster (#49148587) Attached to: Machine Intelligence and Religion

No, it's perfectly pertinent. There is no objective difference between someone talking to God and someone talking to voices in their head they think are God. None.

If God exists, then there are objective differences between those two scenarios, because said God controls reality.

And so when we look at the Jewish/Christian religious history, those who claim to speak for God also are agents of miraculous events, where God affirms their authority to speak for him.

Which again, demonstrates that the religion is formed around a belief that the creator is communicating with his creation. They have no problem to explain why the creator refuses to communicate, because they don't believe that!

Comment: Re:One thing for sure (Score 1) 506

by SillyHamster (#49148473) Attached to: Machine Intelligence and Religion

Jesus might have claimed that, but that means nothing.

It means everything.

The claim was that religious people have to explain why the creator they believe in refuses to communicate.

For this particular religion, they have plenty of examples within their religious history where the creator they believe in communicates with his creation. They believe in a creator that communicates, not a creator that refuses to communicate.

As such, the challenge they face is not to explain why their creator refuses to communicate; it's to demonstrate how their examples of divine communication are actually true. Which are the points you go on to raise.

That you are unable to distinguish between these positions does no credit to your understanding.

Comment: Re:Clear Channel (Score 1) 612

by SillyHamster (#49144331) Attached to: FCC Approves Net Neutrality Rules

And even so, an entity that monopolizes the FM band monopolizes the user experience of people using FM receivers.

And Windows monopolizes the users of Windows PCs. Squint hard enough, and every business is a monopoly. That doesn't make them monopolies.

At a substantial extra monthly fee that's not efficient for low-volume users.

Your point ... ? Users can choose what's right for their needs. Just like all you can eat buffets aren't good value for someone who just wants a quick snack, but decent for someone who wants lots of food.

So what does any of this have to do with "natural monopolies" being monopolies?

Comment: Re:Clear Channel (Score 1) 612

by SillyHamster (#49144015) Attached to: FCC Approves Net Neutrality Rules

Apparently you've never lived in a city whose FM radio band was dominated by Clear Channel.

So you think Clear Channel has monopolized the radio spectrum?

My microwave!

Or when all four major U.S. cellular carriers raised their SMS pricing from 10 cents to send and 10 cents to receive to 20 cents to send and 20 cents to receive, in near lockstep.

Monopoly doesn't mean Quadropoly. Rather nice how all those cellular monopolies offer all these choices like unlimited texting, huh?

Comment: Re:nice, now for the real fight (Score 1) 612

by SillyHamster (#49143965) Attached to: FCC Approves Net Neutrality Rules

The scarcity of radio spectrum would not result in a single radio broadcast corporation monopolizing the spectrum.

What are you basing that assertion on?

Ever hear of pirate radio? Do you understand that broadcast power falls off with the square of the distance?

How do you envision a monopoly arising from the scarcity of the radio spectrum, when all sorts of other scarce resources do not create monopolies?

Who's to say the "steady state equilibrium" wouldn't be the one guy with the most powerful transmitter drowning out every other signal?

Too big a country, and Inverse Square Law for radio broadcast. How much do you think it costs to put down the most powerful transmitterS across the entire country? How much do you think it costs to continually run it at a rate that will drown out any potential competition? Don't you think the Law of Diminishing Returns kicks in at some point?

I submit it is easier to create a cable monopoly than a radio monopoly due to its higher barriers to entry. Building a transmitter is far easier than digging up a bunch of land to lay down cable. And we see that cable monopolies rely on government enforcement to actually have a monopoly.

Don't get me wrong. I am in no way saying that government granted monopolies are good or desirable. I was merely trying to point out it was possible for monopolies to form without a specific government mandate.

Yet, no one can ever point to a single "natural monopoly" actually becoming a monopoly "naturally".

"natural monopoly" is really just an argument that we should create a government monopoly because it's more efficient than the alternative. Perhaps. But monopolies are not a natural phenomenon. The nature of Nature is competition and ecological niches.

Comment: Re:One thing for sure (Score 1) 506

by SillyHamster (#49143431) Attached to: Machine Intelligence and Religion

He claimed to be a son of God. And he also said "You are ALL sons of God.", unless the Aramaic was improperly translated, and it should be children of God.

Do you agree with the overall point, that Jesus claimed to be communicating things from God?

Then religous people made him into "THE son of God", and nobody else has a claim. But that wasn't what J.C. claimed.

If you ignore how often contemporary Jewish religious authorities tried to stone him for blasphemy, or how his disciples understood it that way.

Comment: Re:nice, now for the real fight (Score 1) 612

by SillyHamster (#49143205) Attached to: FCC Approves Net Neutrality Rules

Depends what you mean by enforce I guess. eg there is a limited radio broadcast spectrum. That's not government enforced, that just physics. If everyone just broadcast indiscriminately on whatever spectrum they felt like signal interference would render it useless.

The scarcity of a natural resource does not cause a monopoly to naturally occur. The scarcity of radio spectrum would not result in a single radio broadcast corporation monopolizing the spectrum.

Now, if it wasn't regulated, there would be some chaos - but the steady state equilibrium result may not be all that bad.

Even if you removed all government regulation from building cable networks (which would in practice be next to impossible to do, but for the sake of argument) you'd still never see 27 different cable providers running wires into your house because it's simply not cost effective to duplicate that infrastructure.

But you don't need to see 27 different cable providers to see any benefit from competition. Just more than one supplier aiming to meet the demand.

As for duplication; that assumes that each cable company wants to string their own set of wires. Their desire for profit and the high costs of this method would naturally push them to find other methods - either make the homeowners pay for and own it; or to rent/share with other companies.

The fact that many are unhappy with cable companies and desire more competition shows that granting them government monopolies has downsides. Do you think the US would be better off if Google Fiber efforts were banned because "natural monopoly" and "duplication" and it might not be cost effective?

Comment: Re:nice, now for the real fight (Score 1) 612

by SillyHamster (#49142031) Attached to: FCC Approves Net Neutrality Rules

The laws of physics?

Physics doesn't enforce monopolies.

Take cable - natural monopoly? Except it relies on government enforcement to create the actual monopoly. And even then, there are alternatives - DirectTV, fiber-based Internet video streaming, disc-based, public broadcast ... There's more than one way to skin a cat for every technical problem.

Natural monopolies aren't all that monopolistic. It may be more efficient if they were regulated in certain ways; but then you have to accept that the downsides are linked to regulation, not just the "natural" monopoly.

Comment: Re:One thing for sure (Score 1) 506

by SillyHamster (#49141421) Attached to: Machine Intelligence and Religion

What does this have to do with the point that Christians can objectively point to their religious history and say that their god has been communicating with his creation?

If Jesus exists and was who he claimed to be - would his existence and teaching represent a creator communicating to his creation?

Can you objectively describe that as a creator refusing to communicate?

Comment: Re:One thing for sure (Score 2) 506

by SillyHamster (#49141345) Attached to: Machine Intelligence and Religion

How do we know this man Jesus wasn't just some nutcase ?

Not relevant to the point, which is that the religious can point to objective people, events, and artifacts as a creator communicating to his creation.

But to answer the question, you can also study what Jesus is said to have taught, and evaluate if they sound like the ravings of a madman.

Comment: Re:One thing for sure (Score 2) 506

by SillyHamster (#49140707) Attached to: Machine Intelligence and Religion

A very real problem for the religious folks is that their purported creator seems to refuse to communicate with his (her?) creations. True, religious people routinely claim to be talking directly to their god, but they can't demonstrate this communication to the rest of us.

Have you ever heard of this man called Jesus? Preached in the Middle East 2,000 years ago, claimed to be God, started a major world religion which formed a foundation for modern Western Civilization?

You know, the guy whose birth-year is the basis for the world's year numbering system? You've surely heard of him. Do you know his religion is organized around a book that claims to be God's communication to man?

Even if you don't believe that his religion is true, that is not the same as the purported creator refusing to communicate, or the communication being un-observable. The claimed attempts of communications are right there.

Comment: Re:nice, now for the real fight (Score 1) 612

by SillyHamster (#49140379) Attached to: FCC Approves Net Neutrality Rules

For a party that decries government monopolies in other sectors, they don't seem to understand that monopolies of ALL kinds are dangerous in their own ways.

What understanding are you trying to add here?

You've just complained about municipally (government) granted monopolies. Who else has that power to restrict the competition?

You knew the job was dangerous when you took it, Fred. -- Superchicken

Working...