I think we're talking about quantum mechanics here and there are aspects there which aren't completely deterministic, or if they are then the information we need to predict what will happen is hidden to us. I suppose its a question of how much impact these quantum phenomena have on our decision making.

I'm not sure which is worse. Is the arc of my life as predicable as the orbit of the planets? Or is there a version of me somewhere that didn't make my mistakes just out of pure chance? Lucky sod.

Heres a video describing the Many Worlds interpretation as well as some of the others. http://youtu.be/ZacggH9wB7Y

Anybody been playing Bioshock Infinite?

Wow I'm really surprised at some of the comments on here. Are we really in such a rush these days that we can't do a simple thing which protects children from getting killed?

It's obvious that the reason the law says you must stop each and every time regardless of circumstances is because it removes the all too human factor of poor judgement.

Yes, there will be times when it's clear that passing the bus is safe, but there will be many more times when it's not so clear, and leaving it up to people's better judgement is just asking for a disaster to happen. How many times have we been on the road and other drivers judgement or decision making was just plain horrible and wrong?

Yes with the current law, there will be times when you are stopped unnecessarily, but the alternative would simply not work, people would get careless, they would make mistakes and children would get hurt or killed. Surely protecting the lives of children in such an obvious and easy way is something we can all agree to do, even if it's sometimes annoying and unnecessary?

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

These are tough lose-lose decisions. Yemen will not allow the US to capture Al Qaeda on the ground, but gives consent to drone strikes. This leaves two options, 1) Attack Al Qaeda with drone strikes that kill innocents along with military targets, or 2) allow Al Qaeda to continue with their own violent operations unfettered. Are there better options?


Better intelligence, better targeting, a better decision making process.
Stop the fucking Double-Tap shit. It's purely designed to terrorize the populace.

>> ^CaptainObvious:

>> ^Asmo:
>> ^CaptainObvious:
Fuck no.
Noam Chomsky is a genius and I agree with him almost always - but on this - no way - no.
ANY country with nuclear weaponry is a threat to everyone - let alone a country like Iran. Look what a pain in the ass we have with North Korea and Pakistan.
I remember the cold war and the persistent fear of mutual destruction and the perverse rationality behind it.
I don't want ANY country (including my own) to have nukes, least of all non-democratic countries.
Allowing them and any other non-nuclear country to have nukes is the wrong direction.
We need countries to start giving up nuclear weapons, not proliferating and spreading the disease even more.
The United States might be denying Iran nukes for the wrong reasons (OIL) and perhaps Israel for the right reasons, but frankly I don't care either way.
One less country with nukes is never a bad thing.
---------
"Mr. President, it is not only possible, it is essential. That is the whole idea of this machine, you know. Deterrence is the art of producing in the mind of the enemy... the FEAR to attack. And so, because of the automated and irrevocable decision-making process which rules out human meddling, the Doomsday machine is terrifying and simple to understand... and completely credible and convincing". - Dr Strangelove - yeah. makes sense huh.

What if all they want enrichment for is nuclear power..? \= |
Or, ya know, the right of self determination?

"The state of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran has been criticized both by Iranians and international human right activists...
The government of Iran is criticized both for restrictions and punishments... such as the torture, rape, and killing of political prisoners, and the beatings and killings of dissidents and other civilians....
...execution of offenders under 18 years of age, restrictions on freedom of speech and the press (including the imprisonment of journalists), and restrictions on [[freedom of religion[[ and gender equality in the Islamic Republic's Constitution (especially attacks on members of the Bahá'í religion)...
...execution of thousands of political prisoners in 1988, and the widespread use of torture to extract repudiations by prisoners of their cause and comrades on video for propaganda purposes....
Under the administration of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran’s human rights record "has deteriorated markedly," ... --
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_Islamic_Republic_of_
Iran
Not all countries are built the same.
"right of self determination" - well, where do you draw the line? Can dictators pull this card out as well?


You are conflating two entirely different issues, and doing a bad job of it to boot...

Iran has done the same things for years, but the only thing that get's the US and Israel wet is when nuclear is involved. Don't kid yourself for a second in believing either country would go in to save the people from a dictatorial regime, all they care about is someone else dealing themselves in to the nuclear game. I suspect you know this very well of course but it makes a much more compelling case to break out the violins and claim the action is humanitarian.

>> ^Asmo:

>> ^CaptainObvious:
Fuck no.
Noam Chomsky is a genius and I agree with him almost always - but on this - no way - no.
ANY country with nuclear weaponry is a threat to everyone - let alone a country like Iran. Look what a pain in the ass we have with North Korea and Pakistan.
I remember the cold war and the persistent fear of mutual destruction and the perverse rationality behind it.
I don't want ANY country (including my own) to have nukes, least of all non-democratic countries.
Allowing them and any other non-nuclear country to have nukes is the wrong direction.
We need countries to start giving up nuclear weapons, not proliferating and spreading the disease even more.
The United States might be denying Iran nukes for the wrong reasons (OIL) and perhaps Israel for the right reasons, but frankly I don't care either way.
One less country with nukes is never a bad thing.
---------
"Mr. President, it is not only possible, it is essential. That is the whole idea of this machine, you know. Deterrence is the art of producing in the mind of the enemy... the FEAR to attack. And so, because of the automated and irrevocable decision-making process which rules out human meddling, the Doomsday machine is terrifying and simple to understand... and completely credible and convincing". - Dr Strangelove - yeah. makes sense huh.

What if all they want enrichment for is nuclear power..? \= |
Or, ya know, the right of self determination?


"The state of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran has been criticized both by Iranians and international human right activists...

The government of Iran is criticized both for restrictions and punishments... such as the torture, rape, and killing of political prisoners, and the beatings and killings of dissidents and other civilians....

...execution of offenders under 18 years of age, restrictions on freedom of speech and the press (including the imprisonment of journalists), and restrictions on [[freedom of religion[[ and gender equality in the Islamic Republic's Constitution (especially attacks on members of the Bahá'í religion)...

...execution of thousands of political prisoners in 1988, and the widespread use of torture to extract repudiations by prisoners of their cause and comrades on video for propaganda purposes....

Under the administration of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran’s human rights record "has deteriorated markedly," ... --

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_Islamic_Republic_of_Iran

Not all countries are built the same.

"right of self determination" - well, where do you draw the line? Can dictators pull this card out as well?

>> ^CaptainObvious:

Fuck no.
Noam Chomsky is a genius and I agree with him almost always - but on this - no way - no.
ANY country with nuclear weaponry is a threat to everyone - let alone a country like Iran. Look what a pain in the ass we have with North Korea and Pakistan.
I remember the cold war and the persistent fear of mutual destruction and the perverse rationality behind it.
I don't want ANY country (including my own) to have nukes, least of all non-democratic countries.
Allowing them and any other non-nuclear country to have nukes is the wrong direction.
We need countries to start giving up nuclear weapons, not proliferating and spreading the disease even more.
The United States might be denying Iran nukes for the wrong reasons (OIL) and perhaps Israel for the right reasons, but frankly I don't care either way.
One less country with nukes is never a bad thing.
---------
"Mr. President, it is not only possible, it is essential. That is the whole idea of this machine, you know. Deterrence is the art of producing in the mind of the enemy... the FEAR to attack. And so, because of the automated and irrevocable decision-making process which rules out human meddling, the Doomsday machine is terrifying and simple to understand... and completely credible and convincing". - Dr Strangelove - yeah. makes sense huh.


What if all they want enrichment for is nuclear power..? \= |

Or, ya know, the right of self determination?

Fuck no.

Noam Chomsky is a genius and I agree with him almost always - but on this - no way - no.

ANY country with nuclear weaponry is a threat to everyone - let alone a country like Iran. Look what a pain in the ass we have with North Korea and Pakistan.

I remember the cold war and the persistent fear of mutual destruction and the perverse rationality behind it.

I don't want ANY country (including my own) to have nukes, least of all non-democratic countries.

Allowing them and any other non-nuclear country to have nukes is the wrong direction.

We need countries to start giving up nuclear weapons, not proliferating and spreading the disease even more.

The United States might be denying Iran nukes for the wrong reasons (OIL) and perhaps Israel for the right reasons, but frankly I don't care either way.

One less country with nukes is never a bad thing.

---------

"Mr. President, it is not only possible, it is essential. That is the whole idea of this machine, you know. Deterrence is the art of producing in the mind of the enemy... the FEAR to attack. And so, because of the automated and irrevocable decision-making process which rules out human meddling, the Doomsday machine is terrifying and simple to understand... and completely credible and convincing". - Dr Strangelove - yeah. makes sense huh.

And you sound like his mother. You want him to get away with his crimes because what? He happened to run a company that released something someone else stole? That make sexual assault ok in your book?

Theres been no acting outside the law, except by Assange with the assault, breaking bail, fleeing justice etc. so i really dont see what breaking tradition youre complaining about.

>> ^dannym3141:

>> ^thumpa28:
Why should the swedish government do anything more than stick to the extradition process? When has it become a part of the extradition process that the person being extradited sets out the terms of his extradition?
'but Assange is special!'
No, no he isnt, hes just another criminal in hiding. The fact he says he is and that you seriously think that it should affect whether or not he is brought to justice, makes me glad that we have in this country an independent judiciary who rely on more than the latest daily mail opinion for their decision making process.

You're absolutely right. They should stick to the process.
And when Ecuador decides that julian assange's application for asylum is valid and they want to honour it, we should respect that process too. To do anything else would be hypocritical, correct?
If sweden want assange so much, or if america want him so much; let them break diplomatic tradition. Why us? We probably invented half of the traditions for christ sake (i assume diplomacy was established in or before colonial times), if we can't stick to them then who will?
To me it sounds like you simply want assange's blood. Nothing you've said on this topic has made me think you're genuinely after justice. You sound like he's stolen money off you.

>> ^thumpa28:

Why should the swedish government do anything more than stick to the extradition process? When has it become a part of the extradition process that the person being extradited sets out the terms of his extradition?
'but Assange is special!'
No, no he isnt, hes just another criminal in hiding. The fact he says he is and that you seriously think that it should affect whether or not he is brought to justice, makes me glad that we have in this country an independent judiciary who rely on more than the latest daily mail opinion for their decision making process.


You're absolutely right. They should stick to the process.

And when Ecuador decides that julian assange's application for asylum is valid and they want to honour it, we should respect that process too. To do anything else would be hypocritical, correct?

If sweden want assange so much, or if america want him so much; let them break diplomatic tradition. Why us? We probably invented half of the traditions for christ sake (i assume diplomacy was established in or before colonial times), if we can't stick to them then who will?

To me it sounds like you simply want assange's blood. Nothing you've said on this topic has made me think you're genuinely after justice. You sound like he's stolen money off you.

I wouldnt be so presumptious as to suggest what you completely missing the point suggests about you - something to think about? I believe hes a self-centred scumbag whose profile fits the criminal charges laid against him. What isnt my personal opinion is the completely impartial legal process which found him liable for extradition to answer the charges against him.

I wonder if his love of human rights extends to tackling the Ecuadorian extra judicial killings, 'disappearances' of reporters and the law which locks you up for 2 years if you insult el presidente? Somehow, I dont think Assange willl lose a nights sleep over a troubled conscience when it comes to keeping Assange out of jail. Hes just that kind of guy...>> ^dag:

That you've already judged him a criminal explains your POV completely.>> ^thumpa28:
Why should the swedish government do anything more than stick to the extradition process? When has it become a part of the extradition process that the person being extradited sets out the terms of his extradition?
'but Assange is special!'
No, no he isnt, hes just another criminal in hiding. The fact he says he is and that you seriously think that it should affect whether or not he is brought to justice, makes me glad that we have in this country an independent judiciary who rely on more than the latest daily mail opinion for their decision making process.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

That you've already judged him a criminal explains your POV completely.>> ^thumpa28:

Why should the swedish government do anything more than stick to the extradition process? When has it become a part of the extradition process that the person being extradited sets out the terms of his extradition?
'but Assange is special!'
No, no he isnt, hes just another criminal in hiding. The fact he says he is and that you seriously think that it should affect whether or not he is brought to justice, makes me glad that we have in this country an independent judiciary who rely on more than the latest daily mail opinion for their decision making process.

Why should the swedish government do anything more than stick to the extradition process? When has it become a part of the extradition process that the person being extradited sets out the terms of his extradition?

'but Assange is special!'

No, no he isnt, hes just another criminal in hiding. The fact he says he is and that you seriously think that it should affect whether or not he is brought to justice, makes me glad that we have in this country an independent judiciary who rely on more than the latest daily mail opinion for their decision making process.

They are building a new plant near me. And honestly I think the people wanting to get hired there would probably take a six year pay freeze as part of their employment agreement. It's them using the out of work people in the area from GM closure and other closures to put the squeeze on their current employees, and their employees if they've been unemployed at all HAVE to know that they could be replaced.

My hope is that in 5 and 10 years time, people remember what was done by Caterpillar and choose to not buy their products and work for competitors when the same wage is offered. If people actually remembered and took historical decisions (not in the past year, but 5 or 10 years and more) in their context of the time and use that in their decision making....I just don't see how a company could withstand doing that kind of shit for long.

Unfortunately, people have very short memories and what happened last week, last hour, last minute, last second mentality in all things involving money now. Corporations have fostered that, but people have bowed to it.


I really doubt they get 6 years agreement, but I bet they get at least 3 years on a wage freeze. I also bet their products go up in price more than if the wages had not been frozen, and they end up blaming the workers/unions for those price increases. Insurance will be my first guess on what they blame specifically for costs. And they will secretly question all of those worker comp claims, because those frozen wages probably lead to a lot of disgruntled employees that they now have to monitor more closely and hire extra managers to watch.

>> ^messenger:

Buddhism is a religion. A religion doesn't have to have gods. Perhaps what you mean is Buddhism isn't a religion that requires total control. Jainism is another example of a religion without gods.
I didn't make clear my point about laws, etc. and control: I'm reading into your comments that anything that is about control is always a bad thing, or is always for nefarious purposes. I got this impression because you ended your argument with the conclusion that religions are all about control, as if that was a slam-dunk making them all cults. I pointed out a series of other instances where requiring control over a person wasn't evil, and was even benevolent. This should lead to the conclusion that a religion that asserts control over someone's life may be doing so with good intent. I also did this to highlight the difference between "control" and "excessive control" which you left out. Parental control is normally a good thing. Excessive parental control is a bad thing. Where's the line between control and excessive control? Dunno.
I think you overstated your challenge to me, as there is no religion that requires the relinquishing of free will. They either require or suggest self-control in certain areas, if that's what you mean, but none require relinquishing all decision-making, not even the extreme ones like Jainism, orthodox Judaism, or fundamentalist Islam.>> ^A10anis:
Buddhism is not a religion in the context of this discussion. Neither is the law etc! That said, I will gladly concede, if you can name me a religion/cult which does not require total submission and the relinquishing of free will. I'm done...>> ^messenger:
All faiths do not have the same agenda. That's a ridiculous statement, even if you restrict it to long-established religions. For example, Buddhism seeks to help you find the best person you can be for its own sake, not for the service of some higher power. That's not excessive, and equating it with Scientology in terms of degree of control is not accurate. As for control, yes, all systems --both religious and secular-- involve control. This includes laws, government systems, psychotherapy and parenting. You left out the word "excessive". It's important. Cults are perceived to have excessive control. What constitutes excessive is a matter of debate or personal opinion, but tarring them all with the same brush is still simplistic.

You are a moron, fond only of the nonsense you spout.You have nothing of intellect to convey, so be quiet and know your place...

Buddhism is a religion. A religion doesn't have to have gods. Perhaps what you mean is Buddhism isn't a religion that requires total control. Jainism is another example of a religion without gods.

I didn't make clear my point about laws, etc. and control: I'm reading into your comments that anything that is about control is always a bad thing, or is always for nefarious purposes. I got this impression because you ended your argument with the conclusion that religions are all about control, as if that was a slam-dunk making them all cults. I pointed out a series of other instances where requiring control over a person wasn't evil, and was even benevolent. This should lead to the conclusion that a religion that asserts control over someone's life may be doing so with good intent. I also did this to highlight the difference between "control" and "excessive control" which you left out. Parental control is normally a good thing. Excessive parental control is a bad thing. Where's the line between control and excessive control? Dunno.

I think you overstated your challenge to me, as there is no religion that requires the relinquishing of free will. They either require or suggest self-control in certain areas, if that's what you mean, but none require relinquishing all decision-making, not even the extreme ones like Jainism, orthodox Judaism, or fundamentalist Islam.>> ^A10anis:
Buddhism is not a religion in the context of this discussion. Neither is the law etc! That said, I will gladly concede, if you can name me a religion/cult which does not require total submission and the relinquishing of free will. I'm done...>> ^messenger:
All faiths do not have the same agenda. That's a ridiculous statement, even if you restrict it to long-established religions. For example, Buddhism seeks to help you find the best person you can be for its own sake, not for the service of some higher power. That's not excessive, and equating it with Scientology in terms of degree of control is not accurate. As for control, yes, all systems --both religious and secular-- involve control. This includes laws, government systems, psychotherapy and parenting. You left out the word "excessive". It's important. Cults are perceived to have excessive control. What constitutes excessive is a matter of debate or personal opinion, but tarring them all with the same brush is still simplistic.