Let's hold a few things as true:
Quantum physics requires using probablistic models to describe phenomenom.
Universe means that it contains everything, where by there could only be the one (if something like a multiverse did exist, it would be poorly named, but still within the Single All Containing Thing).
The Universe, from our perspective, is expanding, began with the Big Bang, and will end with the Heat-Death of the Universe.

Some speculations:
Within an empty Universe, one might be able to use the same methods describing Q.P. to describe the probability that the entire contents of the Universe would sponteneously come into being.
As an arbitrary point would suffice, a singularity might be used conceptually, bearing an uncanny resemblance to the big bang.
In order to use these concepts, we are forced to seperate time from the rest of physical reality and existing independant of all frames of reference.
Following the HDotU (H.U), all matter (and thanks to E=MC^2 all energy) will be at such a low and dissipated state as to be nare unobservable, yet still expanding as waves or a current, ever outward. Neccessarily it would still command a gravitational effect, even if otherwise conditions became similar to those preceding the BB.
Following all of the above, it seems reasonable to assume that the whole thing could repete any number of times, and thus present the form of QP descriptors in probability, as the same physical laws would govern each itteration, but local results might vary, such that the last itteration in which that photon passed such location it did so just a smidge earlier.
What if, then, Dark Matter is merely historical residue, built-up over the eons, of past manifestations of the physical reality?
If such were true, being able to measure Dark Matter, and then being able to tease apart meaning from it, could indicate, with some degree of probability, how long such a cycle has been going on.

But also, if one could somehow also escape the bounds of time itself, and observe the Universe from beyond time, perhaps we could see all itterations happening simulteneously; but also, as per QP probability, not existing all the same.

If, somehow one could take the long view of this probable dance, it should then appear a dim flickerin light in the distance. And all that ever was, and all that could ever be, might not be known in the same manner you would know an intimate partner, or the topography of a map, but it could be known what is likely true; ultimately that is all that science is really about anyway.

By the way, I have been waiting for this, or similar, thread for a long time :-) sorry if bad spell/grammar/missing letters: old device in use/user.

Solar panels rob the local environment of the natural solar energy, and wind farms will slow the natural winds and shift weather patterns (significantly at some point), tidal energy harvesting robs the sea, ion-sphear harvesting may well end our magnetosphere. Carbon brings global warming. There is no such thing as free energy, as the energy either already has been stored (coal/oil/NG), or is in use in the environ at the moment. The only sure-proof way not to 100% fuck ourselves right off this rock is for everyone to go pre-industrial again, barring that we at least gotta get rid of capitalism. Radio-active waste disposal is a problem too, but successive generations of reactors are already in design to use spent fuel from current reactors. Regulation and public sentiment are the main things stopping the waste-eatting reactors.

I was at OWS, and there had met a man who now is part of an anarcho-communist farm (which doesnt mean there are no rules or enforcement, but that the members all share in creating the rules, and holding equal standing with other members). This farm is within a half hour drive from New York City, where most of the collective members lived prior to the farm. They raise plants and meat to eat, trade, and sell as needed, and have other skills which they work share, and hire out when here is something they need which they cannot gain in the more broad context of capitalist society. The farm has been in opperation for multiple years now.

Furthermore, as regards Anarchists, there is no ban on using force ( see Spanish Civil War where Anarchists held Barcelona, or the Zapatista movement in Southern Mexico where there has been sucessful active militant resistance to the Mexican National military for almost two decades despite the best efforts of the Mexican government to murder anyone they think are "leading" the movement. There is quite the robust mechanism for widespread collective decision making in S. mexico as well)

So by your logic, prices would be lower if Capitalists didn't charge over and above what it actually costs for every thing. They add cost without adding value and shouldn't have safe harbor in this country (USA) anymore!

Too bad nobody mentioned that tonight Democracy Now was hosting an #ExtendTheDebate event....

Is it wrong to oppose both sides of this argument?

agreed - both arms of the Capitalist Party are pretty terrible

bump - funny

just to clarify:

Apple is trying to have a monopoly on cutting corners?

Alright, if they really want to be the only company to make shite product.

dude, you're missing the point of pro-labor laws. Higher wages shouldn't make things cost more, they should make anyone not directly providing the work have less profit. Of course, under a pro-capitalist economic system, this isn't what happens.

A person may be free to not have a job with a low wage, but really that can become a life-or-death choice, and thus really isn't a choice.

"Free markets" only provide freedom to the people who control the means of production, not freedom for the people who actually provide the labor of production.

Sounds like the best barter possible

see, I think that if you take the exact example given then you'd be correct: such an exercise might not work. (really really might not work).

but the premise given is probably fairly accurate:
real life situations that require a small group to work in concert to solve a problem will likely make them closer than a soft-situation that's been engineered to make them co-operate with results that are generally meaningless.

example: who are your closest friends? Myself -> I feel more close to the people who've been around through some fairly hairy times (and not just because I usually grow out a beard in those periods). Ya dig?

Money isn't the problem.

Money is an amplifier.

As psychedelics to a personality, so to is money to one's ability to act upon the things around them.

You're right that people aren't fair. At least not all of them. My older brother, who has provided quite a support base for me over the last 8 months is not fair. He favored myself and my younger brother, helped us with gainful employment while subsidizing our living needs. This was not to the detriment of anyone else, at-least not specifically, but was not fair.

Then again, the devil will demand what is his... My brother, again for example, uses his money as clout to try to push people around, myself included.
This doesn't work as well against me as it does most people that he interacts with, but that is because I don't have any more economic needs: I am, as of last month, debt free.
But it isn't the money that made my older brother into a manipulative dick, yes even though he helped me a great deal and I love him, he is still a dick, it's his personality to be this way.

who are you to judge who deserves to be happy?

I think such an attitude might be part of the root of your unhappiness

I was wondering that, thanks (I have no mod points, sorry)