Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



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:Five months? (Score 1) 65

by SillyHamster (#49217571) Attached to: Solar Impulse Plane Begins Epic Global Flight

Put simply, even from first principles, the idea of a solar-powered commercial airplane is just a non-starter.

And you haven't even touched on the safety/risk aspects of relying on "fuel as you get it from daylight" to transport commercial quantities of people.

At best, a "solar-powered" plane will be an electrical battery/cap-powered plane that is charged with solar-panels.

It is hilarious and tragic that an AC response accuses you of not having enough imagination. The sad thing is that he is the one who is not using his imagination to consider the costs, challenges, and risks.

Comment: Re:Defense? (Score 1) 274

by SillyHamster (#49199969) Attached to: Laser Takes Out Truck Engine From a Mile Away

Of course, I don't expect to have the local police or military shooting at me (although we do seem to be moving towards a police state); but thugs and gangsters are always able to get their hands on powerful, illegal weapons.

So when's the last time you were pinned down by machine gun fire from a thug/gangster? How much body armor do you wear for that?

How about a drone attack with a Hellfire missile? 155m artillery round? 500 pound bombs from an aircraft? Battleship 16" shell?

Comment: Re:One thing for sure (Score 1) 531

by SillyHamster (#49173885) Attached to: Machine Intelligence and Religion

Well tell me then. How has your particular deity communicated with you? What was the nature of that communication, and what did this deity tell you?

You fail reading comprehension.

"I'd be happy to change this discussion to the topics of your choice, right after you acknowledge that "refuses to communicate" objectively does not apply to the Christian god. Or the Muslim one. Or any other religion which has prophets and a holy book."

Acknowledge the point and then we'll switch topics.

I would also like you to explain what goalposts I moved. Empty accusations are unbefitting a serious discussion.

Show me that you have the intellectual integrity to acknowledge valid points, and we can continue. Or not. Your choice.

Comment: Re:One thing for sure (Score 1) 531

by SillyHamster (#49168963) Attached to: Machine Intelligence and Religion

Sorry, but your definition does allow for lack of communication to be communication.

Nonsense. I have offered no special definition of communication, and I've only used explicit actions/events as examples of communication.

I have said nothing about "silence" as communication. That you could take my silence on the topic as a specific stance is ridiculous.

Am I supposed to be impressed at your failed mind-reading?

Comment: Re:One thing for sure (Score 1) 531

by SillyHamster (#49168711) Attached to: Machine Intelligence and Religion

He wrote, while changing the goalposts.

What goalposts have I changed? Back up the accusation.

Regarding tose early days of direct communication and even more direct intervention, are you willing to acknowledge the genocide, the incest and all the other immoral "communications"?

I'd be happy to change this discussion to the topics of your choice, right after you acknowledge that "refuses to communicate" objectively does not apply to the Christian god. Or the Muslim one. Or any other religion which has prophets and a holy book.

Personally rejecting or disliking the religions involved is no excuse for getting basic descriptions of fact wrong.

Comment: Re:One thing for sure (Score 1) 531

by SillyHamster (#49166445) Attached to: Machine Intelligence and Religion

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

Yes.

From a deity who used to be in pretty regular communication with his subjects, from Garden of eden, the destroying the world via flood after telling one family to prepare, to destroying cities with fire and brimstone (after telling one family again, to constant rules in Leviticus to moses on the mountain getting commandments to burning bushes to arks of covenant to all that contact in the bible......

You're changing the goalposts. "Refuses to communicate" and "refuses to communicate to me right now with a particular method" are different things.

Previous communication is still communication, and if you're willing to acknowledge the Garden of Eden, the Flood warning, and the 10 Commandments as communication, then my point stands.

As for "refuses to communicate right now", what have you done to seek communication with your creator? You'll be hard pressed to find any follower of Christ who believes he "refuses to communicate".

Comment: Re:One thing for sure (Score 1) 531

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) 631

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) 531

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) 531

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) 631

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) 631

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) 631

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) 531

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) 631

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?

The universe seems neither benign nor hostile, merely indifferent. -- Sagan

Working...