Select Page
Poker Forum
Over 1,256,000 Posts!
Poker ForumFTR Community

At its core,

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 76 to 123 of 123
  1. #76
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    7,004
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    I think I'll take advantage of having access to somebody who understands science better than anybody I know (you), and ask the question: how does "science tells us what is, not how to be" not an accurate characterization of science?
    Science doesn't tell us what is or how to be.

    At its best, the results of science tell us, given what is, this is what will be (the predictive output of science).

    The problem with "what is" is that we kinda always feel like we know it, but then later find out we were missing most of the details.
    (Dark Matter / Dark Energy come to mind)

    Science itself tells us a process to avoid being fooled, even when the one trying to fool us is our prior self.
  2. #77
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    7,004
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    I'd put out that observation and our internal explanations tell us what is, but they're terribly unreliable when used in isolation.
    The scientific process guides us to ignore our own sense of "what should be" when encountering something new, which we have not studied. There is no reason to think that things we have not yet studied will fall into categories of understanding which we have already established. Yet, it is something our minds seem pulled toward.

    I have certainly built up a bias over many years toward the Standard Model of Particle Physics + GR w/ {Lambda}CDM*; I try to explain everything using that model. It will fail me when I encounter something beyond the model, and I know it's incomplete, but I don't assume anything new to me is new to the model. It is why science is necessary. It is why reproducible predictions are essential.

    When you observe something new, or unexpected, it is easy to find an incomplete explanation, which fits some, but not all of your observations. The conversation with other honest, open-minded observers is essential to brainstorm your way through all of your observations and to think of an explanation which fits all of them.

    I encourage my lab students to use every identifiable resource in the room to help them understand what they're doing. This primarily include keeping an open conversation with their lab partners, but that's often not enough. It is not cheating to talk to other lab groups. It is part of the process.

    *
    Standard Model of Particle Physics = All the Quantum Physics
    GR = Einstein's General Relativity
    {Lambda} = Dark Energy
    CDM = Cold, Dark Matter
    Last edited by MadMojoMonkey; 06-08-2017 at 09:42 AM.
  3. #78
    Thanks.
  4. #79
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    It is not cheating to talk to other lab groups. It is part of the process.
    You just make sure you publish first, right?
  5. #80
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Yes, there is a god. I am it. That's not me being egotistical, it's just a fact. You're a god too
    I think this is a concept religions toy with yet don't have a handle on so their messages are ambivalent.

    Moving on. EL OH EL at this idea that science has anything to say about any of this.
    It might, we just aren't sufficiently advanced enough to get there. Or it might not. As things are now, in my estimation science is vastly misapplied, resulting in all sorts of false beliefs.

    There's already an entire field of "science" that deals with human behavior. 99.9% of what they do are profit-motivated efforts to mitigate bad feelings. Almost none of what they do has anything to do with cultivating good feelings. Who the fuck would trust that
    The explanation I've seen is that's because what people consider happiness is actually just absence of suffering.
  6. #81
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    The explanation I've seen is that's because what people consider happiness is actually just absence of suffering.
    Lies

    The real explanation is that drugs are addictive and profitable.
  7. #82
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,042
    Location
    himself fucker.
    And fun!
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png target=_blank>http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png</a>
  8. #83
    MMM, I appreciate that you feel the need to illuminate the limits, shortcomings and potential misuses of the scientific method. While I do think science is our salvation, it is nice to get a reality check when all the buzz is about how Elon Musk is going to science us to world peace and eternal bliss.

    With that said, beyond being "proceed with caution" warning, what more does this add to the topic at hand? Do we have all the inputs to get the most out of the scientific method when trying to better understand morality? No, but the scientific method does not require data set omniscience to kick out useful and even actionable results. Correct me if I'm misreading you, but it seems like you believe, due to its limitations, the scientific method should not be applied here. Conversely, I'd argue that it absolutely should be applied here, but with respect to the inherent limits to its predictive power.

    If you want to call it a soft science, fine, but-- I mean, look, even if these creation memes, as they've come down to us, have evolved to be the best moral framework, as I see it, the only way we'll know is by observing, hypothesizing, making predictions, collecting data, forming theories, rinsing and repeating. What alternative is there?
  9. #84
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    7,004
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    I'm pretty sure we're on the same page.

    I'm not saying science will never be able to deal with morality.

    I'm saying that scientific method can be applied to literally everything. Once you know the steps of scientific method, you can readily observe any toddler going through the process.

    Now hearken back to my most recent post. It's not enough to trust ourselves. We have to engage in a conversation where we compare all of our observations and seek to create falsifiable statements which we cannot falsify by experiment, even though we try to, really hard.

    The problem with morality is that no one has yet been able to formulate a falsifiable statement that is not falsified by some experiment.

    If/when this can be accomplished, then science will be able to proceed past the introductory steps of trying to find a fist principle upon which a greater model may congeal.
  10. #85
    Yeah, at the very least we're definitely in the same chapter.

    I think the inability to make a meaningful falsifiable statement regarding morality is due to the shortcomings of our language(s). We (have come to?) define morality in such a spongy vague way, and that's probably due to religions attempting to safeguard their modes of thought by way of a unsaid mutually agreed upon pact to handle either other's modes of thought with kiddie gloves. If contradictory assertions are equally true, nothing is true, the Pope can't be a liar.
  11. #86
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    7,004
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    IDK. By definition, a language is not limited in the scope of what can be discussed using the language by the language itself.

    There are less robust forms of verbal communication, such as pidgin speak, which can convey limited information, on a limited number of subjects.

    By its nature of being a language, it means that anything that any user of the language can have in his noggin, can be expressed in the language. New words come and old words go. Language evolves.


    The phrase, "words can't describe..." is an oft-used poetic phrase which belies the poet to be a numbskull who is bad at their trade. The fact is that words CAN describe, you're just maybe bad at words.


    My point: you can't blame the language for the ideas not being appropriately expressed.
  12. #87
    CoccoBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,363
    Location
    Finding my game
    Our brains have just one scale, and we resize our experiences to fit.

    You wake me up early in the morning to tell me that I'm right? Please wait until I'm wrong.

  13. #88
    "If people feel morally accountable to God, then we don't need a lot of police, we don't need big government. Government rises in the West as God diminishes in the West."

    It's an interesting statement to hear given that it certainly seems that Government is the god of secularism and given that God is an idea of moral self-policing. I wonder if it is true that in order to have a free people you need a particular idea of God, and that if you don't have that it gets replaced by Government.
  14. #89
    CoccoBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,363
    Location
    Finding my game
    If a church and religious scripture are used for policy and governance, how is that not a government?
    Our brains have just one scale, and we resize our experiences to fit.

    You wake me up early in the morning to tell me that I'm right? Please wait until I'm wrong.

  15. #90
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    7,004
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    "If people feel morally accountable to God, then we don't need a lot of police, we don't need big government. Government rises in the West as God diminishes in the West."

    It's an interesting statement to hear given that it certainly seems that Government is the god of secularism and given that God is an idea of moral self-policing. I wonder if it is true that in order to have a free people you need a particular idea of God, and that if you don't have that it gets replaced by Government.
    It's a crap ideology, designed to tell people who believe in God that they would be lost, immoral heathens if they give up their faith.

    Any view of history reveals that religions are vehicles of external warfare as much internal moral guidance.

    I've heard it said by many Christians that the Bible is the only source of moral guidance.
    OK, that's a stupendous assertion, IMO. Let's look at that Bible.
    Where is the moral guidance? It contradicts itself a bazillion times, but comes firmly down on a single side with the divorce issue.
    How's that Christian divorce rate?
    OK.
    I see how strongly they feel about moral guidance when it comes to their own actions, as compared to how they condemn others for not following the Bible's moral code.
  16. #91
    JKDS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    6,799
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Someone can hold themselves accountable to god, yet still break the morals they are supposed to follow.

    Robbing someone to feed their kids, for example.
  17. #92
    Quote Originally Posted by CoccoBill View Post
    If a church and religious scripture are used for policy and governance, how is that not a government?
    That would be. The idea is that if people have internal moral constraints it doesn't need to be set as policy on the societal level. Somebody has to do the policing. In a postmodern society, the policing must be external and set by government. In a society where people believe sufficiently enough that their wrongdoing is judged by God, maybe there is more internal policing of morality and thus less need for government. At the very least, I think that idea is at the core of humankind's discovery/rationale regarding liberty and limited government, whether or not it's actually true/functional.
  18. #93
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    It's a crap ideology, designed to tell people who believe in God that they would be lost, immoral heathens if they give up their faith.
    As crass as it is, that stems from the idea that it is actually true that without certain institutions, humankind is damned. Religious people believe that certain ideas have been necessary for the healthful construction of their worlds and that those ideas don't necessarily come naturally and instead have to be taught/nurtured. At its most basic, this idea probably isn't wrong.

    Any view of history reveals that religions are vehicles of external warfare as much internal moral guidance.

    I've heard it said by many Christians that the Bible is the only source of moral guidance.
    OK, that's a stupendous assertion, IMO. Let's look at that Bible.
    Where is the moral guidance? It contradicts itself a bazillion times, but comes firmly down on a single side with the divorce issue.
    How's that Christian divorce rate?
    OK.
    I see how strongly they feel about moral guidance when it comes to their own actions, as compared to how they condemn others for not following the Bible's moral code.
    Lots of people get things wrong. Also, the more devout people get, the less of the problems you express they tend to have. Christian divorce rate has increased a lot, for example, possibly because large swaths of Christianity have become more or less nominal in practice.
  19. #94
    Quote Originally Posted by JKDS View Post
    Someone can hold themselves accountable to god, yet still break the morals they are supposed to follow.

    Robbing someone to feed their kids, for example.
    A common claim among believers -- and it's one I can attest to from my past experience as well: sometimes when a person wants to do something they believe is wrong, the one thing that stops them is their belief that they are accountable to God. Still, it's not like it works every time.

    On a side note, if I have children I intend on raising them in the Christian ethos even though I suspect that I personally will never again embrace it. It appears to me that my decade of staunch atheism has instilled in me an ego so vast that I may never again be capable of spiritual/psychological humility. I don't consider this a good thing, in part because I think that the decisions I make in life would be healthier for me if I believed myself accountable to a higher moral code.
  20. #95
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    accountable to a higher moral code.
    The absence of this helps explain the fervor found in secular religions, of which Marxism is probably the best example. Man can leave religion but the religiosity of the human mind remains. We've got evolution to thank for that.
  21. #96
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    7,004
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    It appears to me that my decade of staunch atheism has instilled in me an ego so vast that I may never again be capable of spiritual/psychological humility. I don't consider this a good thing, in part because I think that the decisions I make in life would be healthier for me if I believed myself accountable to a higher moral code.
    There's healthy ego and there's taking it too far.

    Learning that the struggle to understand your inner moral code is the same, no matter your religious views, is part of growing up, IMO.
    As such, all of us are on equal footing. All of our moral codes are driven by our own understanding and commitment to be moral, whatever the motivation, religious or otherwise.

    My point is: there is only your moral code. There can be none higher than your own sense of what is right, what is best, and your commitment to follow a path directed by these, no matter the inconvenience.

    If you choose to characterize your inner dialogue on this subject as a conversation with God, that's fine. I choose to characterize all of the voices in my head as me. I don't believe there's any more to it than that.
  22. #97
    Maybe that is your problem wuf, you know rather than everyone elses.
  23. #98
    Quote Originally Posted by Savy View Post
    Maybe that is your problem wuf, you know rather than everyone elses.
    I figured (hoped?) my comment about ego would spark this sort of response.

    I don't know anything. I question everything all the time constantly. I do this to such a degree that I am confused regarding the deepest elements of my being (as probably are most people of themselves). The ego is not something I contend with uniquely; the struggle with ego appears to lay at the core of human interaction with itself and the world. Religions (pretty much all of them) appear to exist as a way to deal with this issue. In Christianity it's interpreted as discarding the ego sufficiently enough to submit oneself to the will and morality of God; in eastern religions it's closer to something like discarding the ego sufficiently enough that one embodies the Way.

    I venture a guess that a core theme of Christianity, fear of God, has stood the test of time due to more effectively instilling in people humility such that the teachings of Christian morality more often overrides their egocentric views. In a way, themes of Christianity, like Hell, Heaven, sin, etc., may actually be a "trick" that directs adherents away from confusion regarding their place in the world and away from the dominance of the ego.

    That which I was referring to regarding my ego is that I have spent so much time and energy uplifting reason and rationality that I'm not sure I can accept any answer that doesn't adhere tightly to that ideal. Yet reason and rationality provide no answers on the fundamental issues of living. What are the answers that religion provides? Well, something along the lines of "we've been doing this for a very, very long time. Just have faith." Is that an answer? According to reason, not really. The funny thing is that it appears to be the best answer that anybody has come up with. Even science is predicated on base assumptions.

    The point I intended with "my vast ego" is that anything I believe must be founded in reason. Perhaps it is the case that the man who believes this has turned himself into a god. Getting out of that trap.....hoo boy....
  24. #99
    Maybe just don't care so much about it and get on with your life in a happier way. It's not like other people have answers, most just subscribe to some obviously flawed bullshit but that lets them get on with their lives. You can do the exact same thing by realising it just isn't that important to living life and none of the answers you're going to get are solid.

    I don't believe in God, never have. I still don't feel the need to be a sociopath. I can't see why I'd be special, maybe a basic understanding of human relationships helps people come to this conclusion. The reason I'm not a dick in most circumstances is because being a dick isn't all that optimal a lot of the time.

    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    The point I intended with "my vast ego" is that anything I believe must be founded in reason. Perhaps it is the case that the man who believes this has turned himself into a god. Getting out of that trap.....hoo boy....
    Well there is your problem then, that's obviously bullshit. No one adheres to that type of thinking. You wouldn't be able to function as a human. Hell you'd struggle to even define what that even means.
    Last edited by Savy; 07-07-2017 at 07:35 PM.
  25. #100
    I know you hate it when I do this, but you make some very good points.
  26. #101
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    I know you hate it when I do this, but you make some very good points.
    I liked it better when you stopped posting.

    (I obviously didn't)
  27. #102
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    6,841
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    Faith, gullible people, and fools with their money

    My dream... is to fly... over the rainbow... so high...


    Cogito ergo sum

    VHS is like a book? and a book is like a stack of kindles.
    Hey, I'm in a movie!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdwe3ArFWA
  28. #103
    John Oliver and gullible. Rich.
  29. #104
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    6,841
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    John Oliver and gullible. Rich.
    Are you attacking the messenger again?
    My dream... is to fly... over the rainbow... so high...


    Cogito ergo sum

    VHS is like a book? and a book is like a stack of kindles.
    Hey, I'm in a movie!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdwe3ArFWA
  30. #105
    Faith, gullible people, and fools with their money
    Are you attacking the messenger again?
    I was referring to his audience. Apparently that's only allowed when the messenger is snarky and supercilious.
  31. #106
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    6,841
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    I was referring to his audience. Apparently that's only allowed when the messenger is snarky and supercilious.
    He breaks down complex issues into easy comedic bits even the most dense can understand. Among many of his topics, as you may know, were televangelists, multi level marketing, net neutrality, opiods, debt buyers, the federal budget, marijuana, coal etc.

    They (lastweektonight) bring up arguments with facts. Surely in a comedic way, but facts. Documentation. Research. E.g. they exposed and took down Sepp Blatter & co. for crying out loud.

    I don't really understand why you call his audience gullible and him snarky and supercilious tbh
    My dream... is to fly... over the rainbow... so high...


    Cogito ergo sum

    VHS is like a book? and a book is like a stack of kindles.
    Hey, I'm in a movie!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdwe3ArFWA
  32. #107
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer View Post
    I don't really understand why you call his audience gullible and him snarky and supercilious tbh
    The facts are cherry-picked and the interpretations of them are filtered through a bias. The delivery is "look at these silly people being silly; we know better; here's a quip." This isn't exclusive to Oliver; it's modus operandi across the left-wing political entertainment media. The right-wing does similar stuff, just different, and neither side is that adept at viewing themselves or the other side objectively. The best way I've seen to describe the language of the right-wing media is "red meat." They gobble that shit up. They want Ann Coulter to shout "Lock her up!" and Judge Jeanine to give the stern dressing down of a mother who has had it up to here (*holds hand up to forehead level*).

    Examples of how some on the outside view the entertainment news hypnosis best exemplified by Stewart and Oliver:







    Regarding the cherry-picking of facts and interpreting those facts through a particular bias, well, the net neutrality episode from Oliver's very beginning is a good example. Some of what he said has truth, but not the whole truth. There's a ton that isn't even addressed, giving a skewed version of events such that false beliefs arise. Of course, that's standard for political entertainment media of any variety.
    Last edited by wufwugy; 07-19-2017 at 04:18 PM.
  33. #108
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    6,841
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    The facts are cherry-picked and the interpretations of them are filtered through a bias. The delivery is "look at these silly people being silly; we know better; here's a quip." This isn't exclusive to Oliver; it's modus operandi across the left-wing political entertainment media. The right-wing does similar stuff, just different, and neither side is that adept at viewing themselves or the other side objectively. The best way I've seen to describe the language of the right-wing media is "red meat." They gobble that shit up. They want Ann Coulter to shout "Lock her up!" and Judge Jeanine to give the stern dressing down of a mother who has had it up to here (*holds hand up to forehead level*).

    Examples of how some on the outside view the entertainment news hypnosis best exemplified by Stewart and Oliver:







    I'm ignoring all this part, obviouusly these examples are from people who can't take a joke or can't tell jokes themselves. It's too sad to go in on it


    Regarding the cherry-picking of facts and interpreting those facts through a particular bias, well, the net neutrality episode from Oliver's very beginning is a good example. Some of what he said has truth, but not the whole truth. There's a ton that isn't even addressed, giving a skewed version of events such that false beliefs arise. Of course, that's standard for political entertainment media of any variety.
    This is once again a hot topic, so I'd appreciate it if you can enlighten me as to what he left out (of the truths) to give rise to false belief. Do take note that I follow this on several tech sites as well
    My dream... is to fly... over the rainbow... so high...


    Cogito ergo sum

    VHS is like a book? and a book is like a stack of kindles.
    Hey, I'm in a movie!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdwe3ArFWA
  34. #109
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    6,841
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    If you have the desire and/or time
    My dream... is to fly... over the rainbow... so high...


    Cogito ergo sum

    VHS is like a book? and a book is like a stack of kindles.
    Hey, I'm in a movie!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdwe3ArFWA
  35. #110
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer View Post
    I'm ignoring all this part, obviouusly these examples are from people who can't take a joke or can't tell jokes themselves. It's too sad to go in on it
    It's only funny if you're inside the bubble. It goes both ways. I find it useful to know what each of the different echo chambers are saying.
  36. #111
    I don't want to get too deep into it, but the basics are that Oliver discussed how ISPs differentiating prices to different customers is a bad idea. He then explained how that *could* be a way to price gouge small startups. Given his premise and assuming that consumers are robots, this is feasible. But the premise is only a portion of the story. ISPs don't want to differentiate prices "just because." They want to do it because some companies are using a lot more than other companies. Charging customers more for using more is standard. Price gouging startups is a non-issue. We don't see it happen in these sorts of economic spaces.

    He then comments on the monopolies in ISPs and how they're bad. He doesn't describe any cause for the monopolies and instead jumps to concluding that because there is a lack of competition, we need net neutrality. Again, that's not the story of what's actually going on. The main cause of ISP monopolization is municipal regulation. Because of these it's near impossible to enter the market. Net neutrality is a way to further ensure that a lack of competition will not be changed.

    Then he goes on to describe ISPs as evil. Pristine superciliousness is when he doesn't understand something yet moralizes about how much better he is.

    He ends with the great savior: the FCC and government. If we just give them enough power, they surely won't do to the internet what they did to radio and TV.
  37. #112
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    6,841
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    I don't want to get too deep into it, but the basics are that Oliver discussed how ISPs differentiating prices to different customers is a bad idea. He then explained how that *could* be a way to price gouge small startups. Given his premise and assuming that consumers are robots, this is feasible. But the premise is only a portion of the story. ISPs don't want to differentiate prices "just because." They want to do it because some companies are using a lot more than other companies. Charging customers more for using more is standard. Price gouging startups is a non-issue. We don't see it happen in these sorts of economic spaces.

    But price gouging of customers is run-of-the-mill. One quick example:


    Last year, around this time, I filed a complaint with the ticket number 357899. In that complaint I spoke of AT&T and their horrid pricing practices due to the crippling lack of competition where I live. AT&T responded which was enough to satisfy the FCC which I find abhorrent. Since then the price of my internet service has actually gone up, a data cap has been imposed for no reason, and the quality of service degrading.


    The reason I've waited so long to continue this complaint is that I do not want AT&T to be able to continue using the temporary discount they gave me for being in contract as a bargaining chip in this complaint. The price we pay for internet now is now $62 a month with forced equipment "rental" of $7 a month bringing the total bill to $69 plus fees and taxes.


    What I am getting for my money is 18 Mbps which is, frankly, pathetic. Literally across the street they have access to Charter and speeds starting at 60Mbps for $60; three times the speed for the same price. When AT&T responded to me the had the audacity to tell me:


    " With regards to our pricing strategy: it is competitive for today's market."


    However, as you can see, their pricing is far from competitive. Not only that but if you look in areas where AT&T does have competition, such as Austin, you see that their price for internet is $60 for 45Mbps and $99 for a full gigabit. Further, since they have no competition here, I have no way of getting a better deal like that which is offered to my neighbors across the street who have Charter.


    As you are aware we need internet to function in today's world. I have to be able to access my work's computers and communicate with family and friends so I can't just drop AT&T like I have with so many other services such as cell phone and, until Direct TV was bought over by them, TV. There is nothing I can do to change this except file a second complaint and hope that the FCC can take some type of action to stop this exploitation of a monopoly market.
    He could not get Charter. It was not available in his area, despite being available across the street.
    My dream... is to fly... over the rainbow... so high...


    Cogito ergo sum

    VHS is like a book? and a book is like a stack of kindles.
    Hey, I'm in a movie!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdwe3ArFWA
  38. #113
    Yes, gouging happens when there is a lack of competition. We should investigate why there is a lack of competition in his area and solve for that.
  39. #114
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    6,841
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ISPs don't want to differentiate prices "just because." They want to do it because some companies are using a lot more than other companies. Charging customers more for using more is standard. Price gouging startups is a non-issue. We don't see it happen in these sorts of economic spaces.

    You are already paying more for more speed if you want more speed. That is what the “ps” in the “MBps or GBps stands for.


    Just like a customer pays for connection speed, companies (read: Amazon, Netflix) with servers all over do pay for for their connection speed as well.




    The whole world is OK with it as it is now. It is reasonable: if I want to browse faster, I pay more. And yet a few US ISPs aren’t, and these have spent about half a billion dollars over 8 years trying to change this.


    http://bgr.com/2017/07/12/net-neutra...ction-july-12/


    The gist is this: by the very nature of the market it becomes an oligopoly sooner rather than later, assuming x amount of players.




    ISPs are not happy with the status quo. They want more. They want as much profit as they possibly can, double and triple charging for the same service if they can. But its not justa bout that: it’s about the introduction of data caps (There are data caps on mobile, so why not also at home? It just makes sense) and the introduction of zero rating their own services against that cap. Also artificial slowdowns of “unapproved” services. Mafia protection, legally sourced and digitally dished.




    Those for Title 2 are arguing that the internet should remain as it is. Those for Destroying Title 2 want ISPs to hold internet services hostage, because profits. The FCCs standard practice is to allow public comments on the issues, because after all, it was an arm of the government designed to protect the consumers. Ajit Pai has clearly stated he just does not give a fuck about any of the comments delivered. The comments section on there is also full of anti title 2 bot comments, and Pai has publicly stated he does not plan into looking into that neither.




    The internet is a utility. Much like electricity. Without the internet many of the things we do on a day to day basis just can’t be done.




    A proper analogy of what’s happening right now is like holding a particularly large shotgun aiming at your own foot.
    My dream... is to fly... over the rainbow... so high...


    Cogito ergo sum

    VHS is like a book? and a book is like a stack of kindles.
    Hey, I'm in a movie!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdwe3ArFWA
  40. #115
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    6,841
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    He then comments on the monopolies in ISPs and how they're bad. He doesn't describe any cause for the monopolies and instead jumps to concluding that because there is a lack of competition, we need net neutrality. Again, that's not the story of what's actually going on. The main cause of ISP monopolization is municipal regulation. Because of these it's near impossible to enter the market.

    Great point


    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Net neutrality is a way to further ensure that a lack of competition will not be changed.

    Wrong. You are being misled wuf, net neutrality is NOT the reason for lack of competition among ISPs. C’mon man.


    Quite the opposite. Net neutrality is being used by ISPs to kill competing services. Fuck off competition. Tons of examples on that.




    Proponents of Net Neutrality legislation identify instances when Internet access providers have inhibited competition by blocking consumers use of independent VoIP service, and by prohibiting consumers from enjoying video programming over the IP network for more than ten consecutive minutes. Proponents also point to recent comments by AT&T Chairman Ed Whitacre, stating that his company intends to seek payment by independent information providers that heretofore have enjoyed “free” carriage to consumers over the Internet. Net Neutrality proponents assert that consumers already pay for network access, and that networks can seek higher prices from users of higher amounts of bandwidth – but that networks should not be able to discriminate against content providers based solely on the identity of the information source or the competitive attributes of the information being provided.

    https://www.wired.com/2017/01/dont-g...ople-business/




    If you are not a technical person, not involved in this for some reason, using your internet just to check your mail and shitpost on forums, you will tend to take the exact opposite conclusion because of the amount of people on payroll to cloud your judgement.






    Keep in mind what I just quoted above. This is an FTC paper on the subject:


    In 2015, the FCC subjected broadband Internet service provid-ers to Title II regulation. It did so to enforce net neutrality rules, which require ISPs (internet service providers) to treat all content on their networks equally. The principal justification is to prevent ISPs, in delivering content to their subscribers, from favoring their own content or that of other creators who pay for “fast lanes.” Should such discrimination flourish—the concern goes—ISPs could relegate disfavored content providers to second-tier modes of access to consumers, degrading competition.
    The rationalization for net neutrality regulation, however, is hard to square with the facts. There is, after all, virtually no evi-dence of ISPs excluding rival content. Two reasons likely explain the paucity of anticompetitive conduct. First, market forces driven by consumer demand would punish broadband service providers that throttled or excluded desired content. And, second, antitrust would forbid efforts by ISPs with significant market power to fore-close rival content. Yet, the FCC’s decision to enact broad net neu-trality rules, which the D.C. Circuit subsequently upheld in 2016, repudiated the view that antitrust is a viable solution to the threat of net neutrality violations.

    You can find these “reputable” articles by bonafide shills everywhere on the internet, in all sorts of legit looking publications too; WSJ, ITIF for crying out loud. I could link you but you might step even deeper into that trap.


    I just showed you however, factually, how AT&T fucked over its competitor (Skype) on VOIP. This FTC paper states that “there are no facts” of “anti-competitive behaviour”.


    I got more examples too, but I think (hope) you get the point.
    My dream... is to fly... over the rainbow... so high...


    Cogito ergo sum

    VHS is like a book? and a book is like a stack of kindles.
    Hey, I'm in a movie!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdwe3ArFWA
  41. #116
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    6,841
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Yes, gouging happens when there is a lack of competition. We should investigate why there is a lack of competition in his area and solve for that.

    Simple: the barrier of entry into that market is too high (mucho dinero), and the legislation in place.




    https://arstechnica.com/business/201...s-really-hard/
    My dream... is to fly... over the rainbow... so high...


    Cogito ergo sum

    VHS is like a book? and a book is like a stack of kindles.
    Hey, I'm in a movie!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdwe3ArFWA
  42. #117
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    6,841
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Then he goes on to describe ISPs as evil. Pristine superciliousness is when he doesn't understand something yet moralizes about how much better he is.

    Here is the kicker man: ISPs are evil.


    Why would I say such a thing?


    EFF Highlights How ISPs Are Lying To Californians To Try And Kill New Broadband Privacy Protections
    https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...tections.shtml


    AT&T Tricked Its Customers Into Opposing Net Neutrality
    https://www.techdirt.com/blog/netneu...utrality.shtml


    The FCC Has To Remind ISPs Not To Spend Taxpayer Subsidies On Booze, Trips To Disney World
    https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...ey-world.shtml


    I had to dig up this article specially for you
    https://web.archive.org/web/20080202...10_002683.html


    because:
    http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2...10_002683.html


    PBS is a part of the government. have you heard they started scrubbing climate change data from there? Turns out it wasnt the only thing they were scrubbing.




    Inserted advertising
    https://techcrunch.com/2007/06/23/re...d-advertising/


    They will sell your browsing data (buhbye privacy lolz)
    https://www.theverge.com/2017/3/31/1...owsing-history


    American carriers can refuse to improve infrastructure and augment capacity without the fear of losing customers.
    http://blog.level3.com/open-internet...net-middleman/


    Verizon have worked hard to keep this status quo by preventing the FCC from doing its job.
    http://gizmodo.com/5845654/verizon-a...trality-ruling


    Americans hate all of their ISPs (with the possible exception being google fiber)
    http://www.slate.com/articles/busine...companies.html


    An ISP was injeecting affiliate links into browsers (to earn dat affiliate money yo)
    https://erichelgeson.github.io/blog/...avior-and-won/


    Marsha Blackburn is their best friend
    http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news...ipal-Broadband






    I can keep going
    My dream... is to fly... over the rainbow... so high...


    Cogito ergo sum

    VHS is like a book? and a book is like a stack of kindles.
    Hey, I'm in a movie!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdwe3ArFWA
  43. #118
    It's going to happen and it's going to be awful.
  44. #119
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    6,841
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    He ends with the great savior: the FCC and government. If we just give them enough power, they surely won't do to the internet what they did to radio and TV.

    Because he assumed that the FCC had rational actors. Turns out he was wrong. Shills cannot be rational to anyone but those who pay them. Corrupt motherfuckers who will not even listen to those who voted to get them there, are in there.


    This is basically the most brazen act of corruption I have seen. Even the mafia tries to conceal when they come for your protection money.

    Pai's FCC is basically the corrupt nuts
    My dream... is to fly... over the rainbow... so high...


    Cogito ergo sum

    VHS is like a book? and a book is like a stack of kindles.
    Hey, I'm in a movie!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdwe3ArFWA
  45. #120
    It appears that the argument is that because the individual companies suck*, because the government is regulating away competition in favor of these suck companies, because the government can't be trusted, we should have the government regulate some of the suck of the companies.

    *Every company sucks individually. The first significant discovery of economics was how competition is the method to defeat the individual suck.
    Last edited by wufwugy; 07-19-2017 at 11:11 PM.
  46. #121
    What is he saying here?

    https://twitter.com/langdaleca/statu...39741298520064

    If scientists based their models on observations, & those observations are ALL ultimately based on fundamental assumption, it's transitive.
    Is he saying something like scientific observations show fundamental assumptions are true due to transitive logic? That doesn't strike me as correct. I've got to be misunderstanding his point. Please help me understand this.
  47. #122
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    What is he saying here?

    https://twitter.com/langdaleca/statu...39741298520064



    Is he saying something like scientific observations show fundamental assumptions are true due to transitive logic? That doesn't strike me as correct. I've got to be misunderstanding his point. Please help me understand this.
    He's saying that if your starting point is something that is faith then all the other stuff you got from that starting point is also faith. I don't mean faith necessarily in a religious way.

    I think it's kind of how we've spoken about axioms before and how everything builds upon those axioms but there isn't anything particularly true or real about those axioms by definition. When people say things like this they tend to be pushing the whole it's all takes belief to believe argument which when we've looked at the rigour involved in those axioms we know this isn't in any way a fair or real comparison.

    It's also really not the point, as MMM points out all the time the point of science isn't some universal truth it's a tool.
    Last edited by Savy; 08-31-2017 at 04:29 PM.
  48. #123
    Oh okay that clears it up. In other posts he made the argument that even scientists have at least one base assumption that must be taken on "faith", so I was quite baffled in thinking he was also saying that via transitive logic science is "true." But what he's actually saying is that because all things in science have base in assumption, the assumption is transitive. That clears it up. Thanks.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •