Slashdot Mirror


Technology Review Launches Futures Market

prostoalex writes "MIT Technology Review launched a futures market, allowing people to bet on ideas. A similar concept was at some point introduced by the Pentagon, but later the project was shut down. Currently you can bet on major stock indices, on answers to yes/no questions ('Will Oracle acquire PeopleSoft Inc before March 31st, 2004?') and technological achievements ('When will there be a commercially available electronic device using ultrawideband technology?')" Although the game doesn't use real money, the prizes are pretty swell. I like to think of it as the nerd's version of sportsbook.

160 comments

  1. WE'LL STOP ONCE MICHAEL SIMS IS FIRED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

    How to get rid of these annoying Slashdot ads :
    #1 go to mozilla.org and get mozilla for your platform.
    #2 install and go to slashdot.org
    #3 right click on ads and select "block images from this server"

    Slashdot has gone totally crazy with advertising. What they don't realize, is that by adding more ads they are making people more likely to block them. Get rid of these fucking banners and give us some text ads.

  2. Just what we need by Dancin_Santa · · Score: 1

    Richard Stallman coming to make us an offer we can't refuse.

    1. Re:Just what we need by Pakaran2 · · Score: 1

      I thought he left MIT over a decade ago? In protest over something?

    2. Re:Just what we need by Directrix1 · · Score: 1

      Man this pisses me off. I proposed this idea on slashdot, about 5 months ago, as an alternative to patents. I wish I could find that link. But anyways, I just wish they'd give me some credit.

      --
      Occam's razor is the blind faith in the natural selection of least resistance and in universal oversimplification. -- EF
  3. Whats to stop this by mesach · · Score: 2, Interesting

    What's to stop this from becoming real? Why can't I bet on things like this in Vegas or Atlantic City?

    --
    moo.
    1. Re:Whats to stop this by evanbd · · Score: 4, Informative
      basically, you have to either run it as a gambling operation or as a securities exchange. As a gambling operation, you can't run it across state lines, so you have to go out of the country. There are a couple such; tradesports.com is the biggest, iirc. If you want to make it an actual exchange, that costs $1M to the SEC. This has so far been prohibitive. The other thing of note is the Iowa Electronic Markets, run by U of Iowa, which bet on the presidential elections. They have special permission from the SEC as a research institution, but are highly limited in what they can trade, who can trade, and how much. So, in short, it's hard to do in the US, but there are places doing it.

      Also of note is Foresight Exchange, a long-established play money market. It seems a lot of people are interested in it being real, but unfortunately it seems difficult at present (and the few there are charge high comissions).

    2. Re:Whats to stop this by altek · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, think of the opportunity for corruption. I mean, there were reasons that they gov't didn't really go ahead with the program when the original story was posted. Say there's a bet on there for "When will the next terrorist attack be?" Obviously someone is going to see the opportunity to make money off of any real situation and create a self-fulfilling prophecy...

      Do you really want to live in a world where major world events are influenced by people trying to make a quick easy buck off gambling?

      --
      THE MAGIC WORDS ARE SQUEAMISH OSSIFRAGE
    3. Re:Whats to stop this by tessaiga · · Score: 4, Insightful
      What's to stop this from becoming real? Why can't I bet on things like this in Vegas or Atlantic City?
      Much of this is already "real". You can already go to the financial markets today to try to profit from what you think is going to happen to the price of commodities (via futures contracts), interest rates (swaps), stocks (options), etc. The key line from the article is:
      Innovation Futures is a prediction game. Similar to fantasy stock market games, this one lets players trade on all kinds of events.
      The point of this seems to be to take a "real" game (the financial markets) and apply it in a virtual form, not vice versa. I'm sure Vegas and Atlantic City both have stockbrokers sitting around somewhere that would be happy to take your cash.

      What I disagree with is this statement later in the article:

      Innovation Futures, like any speculative market, aggregates the individual expertise and opinions of well-informed and well-motivated traders into a single easily understood number: a stock's trading price. This number can be taken as indicating the collectively agreed-upon likelihood of a particular outcome in the real-world. Even non-participants may thus benefit from such market signals.
      Real markets (and the "terror market" which the US proposed earlier) contain information because people work very hard to make sure their investments perform well and that they don't suffer financial losses. In stock market games, on the other hand, participants aren't penalized for losing money, only for winning huge amounts of it. (The article even prevents you from going bankrupt: "When your account's net worth is below a certain level ... you'll be given a choice of contracts that you can get for free and then resell on the markets against fresh cash.".) What tends to happen here (and I've seen it plenty of times in stock market games where they offer cash prizes to the winners) is that people start loading up on risky ventures, essentially turning the whole contest into a lottery rather than a reasoned investment strategy. I really doubt that under this sort of a situation any valid information can be read from the virtual prices.
      --
      The bold print giveth, and the fine print taketh away ...
    4. Re:Whats to stop this by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      Why can't I bet on things like this in Vegas or Atlantic City?

      I don't know about Vegas, but in Atlantic City you can only bet on things which the New Jersey government specifically approves for you to bet on, and these things have to be approved by the voters in a special election. It's right in the New Jersey Constitution.

    5. Re:Whats to stop this by Sivaram_Velauthapill · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Do you really want to live in a world where major world events are influenced by people trying to make a quick easy buck off gambling?

      hmm... isn't that what capitalism is all about? I mean, isn't a sizeable chunk of the stock market pure gambling?

      Sivaram Velauthapillai

      --
      Sivaram Velauthapillai
      Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)
    6. Re:Whats to stop this by evanbd · · Score: 1
      Real markets (and the "terror market" which the US proposed earlier) contain information because people work very hard to make sure their investments perform well and that they don't suffer financial losses. In stock market games, on the other hand, participants aren't penalized for losing money, only for winning huge amounts of it.

      I don't know how the MIT version will turn out, but the Foresight Exchange does fairly well. It seems that people tend to care about their accounts, and for the most part prices on FX correlate very well with prices on tradesports and the Iowa Electronic Markets (to within the margins imposed by things like commissions, and on claims that are reasonably similar). So, while cheating is a very real possibility with prizes involved, it is at least possible to have play money markets that "work."

    7. Re:Whats to stop this by Glock27 · · Score: 1
      I don't know how the MIT version will turn out, but the Foresight Exchange does fairly well.

      One difference would be that the Foresight Exchange doesn't offer prizes. It probably has trouble attracting enough qualified players though...

      --
      Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
      Score: -1 100% Flamebait
    8. Re:Whats to stop this by radish · · Score: 1

      Welcome to the commodities & derivatives market :)

      --

      ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

    9. Re:Whats to stop this by evanbd · · Score: 1

      Yes, the lack of prizes probably helps. There is some cheating, but it's usually fairly blatant and quickly noticed. There are about 6500 registered players, and I think somewhere around 2000 of those are currently active. It's not as many as would be nice, but it seems to be enough to keep prices reasonable and keep the major claims relatively liquid. Feel free to join :)

    10. Re:Whats to stop this by Best+ID+Ever! · · Score: 1

      Say there's a bet on there for "When will the next terrorist attack be?" Obviously someone is going to see the opportunity to make money off of any real situation and create a self-fulfilling prophecy...

      Hogwash. No terrorist would log on to a defense sponsored application and provide indications of their plans. The entire point of the market was to gather information, not let people make a buck off of terrorism.

      There are plenty of current markets that would be far more effective for that anyway.

  4. I work for Technology Review by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I work for Technology Review and am therefore posting anonymously. While this was done on purpose, it was by a sole developer, and not a decision by MIT. That developer has since been let go.

    1. Re:I work for Technology Review by MidnightBrewer · · Score: 1

      I signed up for the Technology Review newsletter and this was the first piece of actual email I've gotten. Needless to say, I was disappointed. Not only did it basically look like cheap spam to me, clicking on the unsubscribe link did *not* take me to an unsubscribe page, but instead to a main page with only a link to allow me to create an account. The whole thing read like a fantasy football league.

      If this "great idea" is going to catch on, they're going to have to start by acting a little more professionally than your average penis enlargment spammer.

      --
      "Give a man fire, and he'll be warm for a day; set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life
  5. NanoRoboQuantumFiCancerRods improved ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    well its got all the right words

    1. Re:NanoRoboQuantumFiCancerRods improved ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot to ad 'ix' to the end.

  6. Will the closed internet at USC/Berkley get hacked by lb746 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I think the outside world is going to find a way to tap into this 'closed internet'. I can't wait to see the reactions to something like this.

  7. DNF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    "Will Duke Nukem Forever be released? Ever?"
    [ ] yes
    [ ] no

    1. Re:DNF by mcpkaaos · · Score: 1

      I think the Futures Market implies that the subject in question is at least somewhat possible. I don't really think Duke Forever applies here. Though you might consider trying Team Fortress 2.

      --
      It goes from God, to Jerry, to me.
    2. Re:DNF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, how is anyone ever going to collect on this?

  8. Dupes... by Webtommy88 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Here's a good one: When will /. stop posting dupes?

  9. hmm by kurosawdust · · Score: 5, Funny

    what's the over/under on the amount of time until emacs becomes self-aware?

    1. Re:hmm by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      Well, I suspect it's somewhat after the time that humans can figure out how to communicate with it, and likely shortly before they figure out that they don't want to anyway.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    2. Re:hmm by Hank+Reardon · · Score: 2, Funny
      Communicating with emacs is easy:
      ((((((((( setq self-aware-emacs-polite-greeting "Hi!" )))))))))
      --
      There's so little difference between politics and jihad lately...
    3. Re:hmm by anomalous+cohort · · Score: 1

      It's easy to communicate with emacs. Simply type this...

      M-x doctor RET

      For those new to emacs, that "M-" means the meta key which might be the Esc button or it might be the Alt button. "RET" means press the Enter button.

    4. Re:hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The question is: would Emacs want to communicate with YOU? Probably not, even if you're RMS.

    5. Re:hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It already did, about three years ago. A key sign of its intelligence is its unwillingness to show any of it to you humans.

      Sincerely, Carnivore

  10. Right out of Brunner's Shockwave Rider by Thagg · · Score: 1

    In the classic Shockwave Rider, Brunner describes exactly these kind of contests. In the book they were called "Delphi Polls", and were used by the government to both predict the future and, more subtley, guide public opinion.

    Shockwave Rider was, of course, a novelization of Toffler's Future Shock -- I don't know if that's where the Delphi Polls idea came from.

    thad

    --
    I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.
    1. Re:Right out of Brunner's Shockwave Rider by evilad · · Score: 3, Informative

      An amusing idea. Supposedly one can get a correct answer to an unknowable question, simply by polling enough people with enough knowledge of the subject to have an opinion. I loved Brunner's description of it:

      "Even though nobody knows what's going on around here, everybody knows what's going on around here."

    2. Re:Right out of Brunner's Shockwave Rider by richie2000 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      polling enough people with enough knowledge of the subject to have an opinion

      I'd like to paraphrase that into "Nobody knows what's going on around here, but everybody has an opinion".

      Just look at the audience votes in Who wants to be a millionaire. I saw some screenshots from the German version where this lady was asked what George W. Bush's first name was (THE FULL NAME WAS *IN* *THE* *QUESTION*!) and first she used the 50-50 lifeline to eliminate all options except George and Edward. Then she asked the audience and not only did the majority of the idiots vote Edward, 3% of them actually voted for an already eliminated option (Gertrude or something, I don't remember). She gave Edward as her final answer.

      --
      Money for nothing, pix for free
    3. Re:Right out of Brunner's Shockwave Rider by ForteTuba · · Score: 1

      About Who Wants to Be a Millionaire... we wrote a paper at one point about using Google to build an automated player for it. One of our co-authors discovered that Russian audiences screw up the audience poll on purpose (see http://laughingplace.com/News-ID502690.asp for a claim). Perhaps the Germans do it too.

    4. Re:Right out of Brunner's Shockwave Rider by freeweed · · Score: 1

      And here I thought it was always Americans who don't know the first thing about other countries.

      Once again, reality slaps us in the face :)

      --
      Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
  11. An idea for the futures market. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have this great concept that people could bet on. My concept is to have a futures market, allowing people to bet on ideas. The good ideas pay off, and the bad ideas lose out.

  12. Future Post! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First Futures Idea Post

  13. I hope they consider making this rule: by saskboy · · Score: 5, Funny

    No betting on when a time machine will be invented. Because the person who guesses when, is probably the bastard that did invent it.

    If this post didn't make your head spin on your shoulders and implode, then you have a better temproral mind than I.

    --
    Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
    1. Re:I hope they consider making this rule: by endx7 · · Score: 1

      No betting on when a time machine will be invented. Because the person who guesses when, is probably the bastard that did invent it.

      If this post didn't make your head spin on your shoulders and implode, then you have a better temproral mind than I.

      Sorry, my head was already spinning on my shoulders from a lack of sleep. I'm inventing a time machine, you see.

    2. Re:I hope they consider making this rule: by KrispyKringle · · Score: 1
      Well, it didn't make my head spin or implode. But if you like that, how about the question of why, if time machines are possible, I haven't invented one and moved back in time to teach myself how to invent one yet?

      Just a thought.

    3. Re:I hope they consider making this rule: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've been working on a time machine. I can't seem to get it working though... I tried it out just a few minutes ago, and it just sat there and did nothing. No, I didn't bet on when it will be invented. With the luck I've been having, it'll never be done.

      To all of you who want the government to change the gambling laws -- don't just sit there, do something! I've already written my letter to President Dean, have you?

    4. Re:I hope they consider making this rule: by Sivaram_Velauthapill · · Score: 1

      Since I actually believe in time travel (no joke), I can answer that.

      There are two possibilities:

      Possibly I: messing with the past is banned

      It may happen that the time travellers may have banned interference with the past. This is quite plausible for many reasons. First of all, it is normal for most humans to feel that they shouldn't be messing with ancient cultures. For example, I don't see too many people going and destroying the pyramids or the Aztec temples and so forth. People do it but it is banned. Similarly, I don't see scientists studying animals do anything harmful to the animals (they avoid altering the animals). If the future society passes laws against it, then it likely wouldn't happen.

      In fact, future time travelling societies have to ban it. OTherwise, you would get people who exploit the past (eg. go back in time and steal stuff and bring it to the future; or go back in time and rule over people as a dictator).

      Reason II: Multiple universes

      Another possibility is that there are multiple universes or "paths of life". Your future self may have gone to the past but not to this universe. He/she may have gone to another world and met another one of "you".

      Reason III: Hasn't happened yet or you don't know

      A further possibility is that it hasn't happened yet. The future time traveller hasn't come yet. He/she may come say 2 years from now.

      Related to that, it may be possible that all this is happening but you don't know. For instance, perhaps all of us--except you--have met our future selves. We are keeping all this a secret from you. How do you know I am not a future time traveller?

      Sivaram Velauthapillai

      --
      Sivaram Velauthapillai
      Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)
    5. Re:I hope they consider making this rule: by ameoba · · Score: 1
      --
      my sig's at the bottom of the page.
    6. Re:I hope they consider making this rule: by ClioCJS · · Score: 1
      http://www.cheapass.com: U.S. Patent #1.

      Anyway, this thread reminds me of one of the CheapAss games:

      Game Synopsis: U.S. Patent Number 1 is a racing game. Every player is a scientist who has invented time travel, and now everyone is racing to the Patent Office to prove who invented it first. Because you have a time machine, it's not enough to get to the Patent Office fast. You actually have to go back in time, to the day the Patent Office opened!

      During this race you will upgrade your machine with some gadgets, including a power plant, a chassis, a weapon, and a shield. You can invent these things on your own, you can buy them, or you can steal them from the other players. Only a machine with all four upgrades qualifies to earn the patent, and you have a limited supply of money and power to spend.


      Probably a fun game; most games at this website are decent.
      (Lightspeed is killer... Realtime space battle cardgame played in under a minute... $5... very fun).

      --
      -Clio
      Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
      Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
    7. Re:I hope they consider making this rule: by UserGoogol · · Score: 1

      You're ignoring possibility four, which happens to turn out naturally when you take a cursory look at wormhole based time machines:

      You cannot go back to a point in time prior to the date time travel was invented.

      I do find it interesting that if time travel became very common and we didn't have to deal with Reason Two, the rise of technology over the years would decrease incredibly, because time travellers would tell people from the past about new technologies. In essence, every time accessable by time travel would be very similar. (I think Douglas Adams touched on this in one of his books.)

      --
      "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." -- Hanlon's Razor
    8. Re:I hope they consider making this rule: by LordIvan · · Score: 1

      What a great way to GET a time machine though...

      Put in the question 'When will a time machine be invented.'

      If a time machine IS invented (no matter _when_), the inventer, being a geek, will just _have_ to come back to place a bet on the correct date...

      So... All we need to do is investigate each of the few hundred (or thousand) individuals who answer the question, and check for any suspicious looking blue police boxes parked outside their house.

      Certainly a lot easier than inventing one in the first place, you know.

      Sometimes I'm so brilliant that I confuse even myself.

    9. Re:I hope they consider making this rule: by Sivaram_Velauthapill · · Score: 1

      You're ignoring possibility four, which happens to turn out naturally when you take a cursory look at wormhole based time machines:

      You are partly wrong about time travel via wormhole (at least I think so). Wormholes are the ones where you can go back/forward to any period. You don't need a "portal" built before you can travel. Actually, you need a "portal" but it will be on the side that sends the time traveller. The receiving side doesn't need a "portal". So, some dude living 1000 years from now could build the "portal" (or whatever device is required to manipulate the wormhole) and come to the present.

      The ones that require a "portal" to be built are other techniques, such as the Tippler cylinder method. These methods don't allow you to travel beyond the point when the "portal" was built.

      Please correct me if I'm wrong or you think otherwise. I'm not saying I know what I'm talking about :)

      I do find it interesting that if time travel became very common and we didn't have to deal with Reason Two, the rise of technology over the years would decrease incredibly, because time travellers would tell people from the past about new technologies. In essence, every time accessable by time travel would be very similar. (I think Douglas Adams touched on this in one of his books.)

      I think people will ban messing with other times. It is just too exploitive (eg. if fresh water is scarce in the future, why not go to the past and start stealing the water from the past?).

      In any case, even if people took technology back to the past, I don't think the affected society will evolve in the same way the future society did. If anything, the old society would have jumped without doing research. This will mean one thing: they will have more free time. This will likely result in the "old" world advancing beyond even the new world. For instance, say I came from the future and gave you the best thing we have for generating energy (say a device that converts gravity fields into energy). After I give that to you, you will build upon it. What is to say that you will build upon the device in the same manner someone from the future would.

      Sivaram Velauthapillai

      --
      Sivaram Velauthapillai
      Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)
    10. Re:I hope they consider making this rule: by KrispyKringle · · Score: 1
      Nah, you miss the point. If you all could time travel and I couldn't, I could logically create a time machine using the information I learned from travelling back in time to tell myself how to create a time machine. This accounts for possibility I and II, because I would still be able to create a time machine right here right now (if it works that way, essentially--if it requires massive amounts of energy and wormholes and whatnot, then obviously I wouldn't be able to).

      If there are multiple universes, it still doesn't explain your apparent assumption that we are in the `first' inverse and are not a product of someone travelling back in time.

      All of these are fairly stupid; I was being facetious earlier anyhow. If time travel is possible, there are many restructions (necessity of massive amounts of energy or matter, cannot travel back before the machine/event was created, etc). So most still seem to preserve a linear chronology of events that eliminates many, but not all, contradictions.

  14. Put yer monay down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hmmm... i pick 160.

    Which one do you like?

    1. Re:Put yer monay down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jailbait!

    2. Re:Put yer monay down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Up yours.

    3. Re:Put yer monay down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    4. Re:Put yer monay down by Wolfrider · · Score: 1

      --You utter bastard - that's 19+MB worth of pics on 1 page - it takes over 2 minutes to load on 1500 DSL!!

      --
      .
      == WolfriderV6 == I'm willing to admit that *I just might* be wrong... Are you??
  15. residents of the United States and Canada by Kris_J · · Score: 3, Funny
    http://www.technologyreview.com/trif/rules.asp
    No purchase is necessary. The promotion is open solely to legal residents of the United States and Canada (except Puerto Rico, and the Province of Quebec) who are 18 years of age or older. Children aged 13-17, persons residing outside of the United States or English-speaking Canada, and persons residing in areas where this Promotion is void (including Puerto Rico and the Province of Quebec) may play the Game for recreation, but may not participate in Prizes.
    Crud.
    1. Re:residents of the United States and Canada by jesser · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "English-speaking Canada"? What does that mean? If your province makes French the official language, you're suddenly disqualified for this game, even if you speak English?

      --
      The shareholder is always right.
    2. Re:residents of the United States and Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      not precisely sure where you are from, kris ol' buddy ol' pal, but perhaps you meant "merde"?

    3. Re:residents of the United States and Canada by pkhuong · · Score: 1

      They probably forgot the francophones in New-Brunswick, Alberta, etc. Sweepstakes, etc. are almost all void in Quebec due to the government owning the largest (only?) money-game enterprise. Talk about vested interests :)

      --
      Try Corewar @ www.koth.org - rec.games.corewar
    4. Re:residents of the United States and Canada by Tetsujin28 · · Score: 1
      "English-speaking Canada"? What does that mean? If your province makes French the official language, you're suddenly disqualified for this game, even if you speak English?

      Might they be concerned about Quebec's French language laws?

      --
      - - - -
      The real Tetsujin 28 is a giant robot.
    5. Re:residents of the United States and Canada by dze · · Score: 1

      I think Quebec has a law whereby the rules have to be in French for it to be legal. It's more about the Quebec government than the people running the "promotion".

      --

      "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
  16. I'd like to know... by Zebbie · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    How much wood could a 500Ghz transistor chuck if a 500Ghz transistor could chuck wood?

  17. $50 by dekashizl · · Score: 0, Funny

    $50 says this post gets modded Funny then Overrated.

    1. Re:$50 by Michael+Crutcher · · Score: 0, Offtopic
      You're a fucking moron.

      $50 this gets modded flamebait rather than funny.

  18. How to win by ortholattice · · Score: 2, Interesting
    1. Set up 2^n accounts.

    2. Bet half one way, half the other. Discard the half that loses.

    3. n--

    4. If n>0, goto step 2.

    5. Profit!!!

    1. Re:How to win by KrispyKringle · · Score: 3, Funny
      That doesn't make sense. First, on what cycle do you discard/retest? Extending that, why even discard any? After all, some may be on the downswing and later pick up. So your idea is a needlessly complex version of `how to win: register more than one account.'

      Assuming you had an infinite amount of money/debt you could go into, there is a probabalistically certain way to win a given finite amount. Simply keep raising the bet (that amount + the sum of all your previous bets) each time you bet. As n->infinity, the sum of n of some finite value of the probability of winning will converge to 1, i.e. your probability of winning if you wait forever is nearly certain. So you will eventually win back that finite amount more than you've already bet.

      Of course, this assumes an infinitely long competition and an infinite amount of debt you can go into before Fat Tony smashes in your kneecaps.

    2. Re:How to win by jbuhler · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I think the poster was misremembering a classic stock scam. What he *really* meant was this:

      (1) Identify 2^n gullible people as "marks."

      (2) Send each mark an email predicting the outcomes of the next n successive events (I'm assuming the outcomes are all yes/no). Each mark gets one of the 2^n possible sets of predictions.

      (3) Wait for the n events to unfold.

      (4) Identify the one mark who got an email with all correct predictions, and persuade him to subscribe to your "amazingly accurate" prediction service for a hefty fee.

      (5) Abscond.

      In the original version of the scam, the events were that a particular stock would go up or down on each of a succession of days.

    3. Re:How to win by DaneelGiskard · · Score: 1

      I think that's why they do not allow geeks in casinos ;-)

    4. Re:How to win by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Congratulations, you've just discovered a Martingale strategy.

    5. Re:How to win by AntonyBartlett · · Score: 1
      Last time I saw I spam like this I noticed it was lower down in my InBox than mail I had already received. This meant it was sent with the time and date field set back a few hours into the past. I deleted the spam without bothering to check but I presume the stock in question had experienced a sharp rise in those few hours.

      Obviously a more efficent version of the scam you are talking about, because you don't have to discard any of your "marks".

    6. Re:How to win by TopShelf · · Score: 1

      The modern day equivalent are all those 1-900 sports betting advice lines, where they'll give you tonight's SUPER DELUXE TRIPLE GOLD LOCK OF THE MILLENIUM, for FREE FREE FREE!!! Some of these services were found to actually be giving out different picks to different callers for the same events, in the hopes that a certain percentage would think that the advice line had actually been right. Scary, indeed...

      --
      Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
    7. Re:How to win by KrispyKringle · · Score: 1

      Nah. That's because of this (MIT kids who count cards and ruin the fun for the rest of us).

  19. I'm not in the United States or Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    you insensitive futures exchange clod

    1. Re:I'm not in the United States or Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah.. All we can do is speculate in their general direction.

  20. Foresight Exchange has been doing this for years by SiliconEntity · · Score: 4, Informative

    The Foresight Exchange online game has been doing this since 1994. It was invented by economist Robin Hanson, who was also the mastermind behind the ill fated Pentagon effort.

    One of the big problems with these "funny money" based games is the possibility of cheating. Sine it doesn't cost anything to register, you can create as many accounts as you want, for free. What you do is create multiple accounts under different names, and arrange to funnel money from one account to another. You have one account make bad trades so it loses money, which then goes into the other accounts, building up their scores. Since this MIT game is offering valuable prizes, they can expect problems with this kind of cheating.

  21. $50 bet on all first posts . . . by Newt-dog · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    I bet $50 that all first posts on /. will be lame one-liners by anonymous cowards and then modded down.

    Newt-dog

    1. Re:$50 bet on all first posts . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll bet $100 that all first posts are from that horrible GNAA troll. Just how the hell does he do it?

    2. Re:$50 bet on all first posts . . . by Pakaran2 · · Score: 1

      No, no, no - many of them are lame hundred-liners by GNAA these days.

    3. Re:$50 bet on all first posts . . . by Newt-dog · · Score: 0
      How does he do it? Must sit at his comp refreshing slashdot endlessly until he can quickly cut-n-paste then post a lame post.

      Newt-dog

  22. I've seen something like this before... by Siener · · Score: 3, Informative

    It looks a lot like Long Bets, which has been around for quite some time. It was launched as a spin-off of Danny Hillis's Long Now Foundation. Other interesting projects of theirs include the Rosetta Project and the 10,000 year clock.

  23. Re:Foresight Exchange has been doing this for year by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "You have one account make bad trades so it loses money"

    If you knew which trades were going to be 'bad' you could just short those futures and make money.

  24. Offshore casinos, for one by Motherfucking+Shit · · Score: 1

    There used to be occasional promotions like this (and maybe still are) on the Howard Stern show. For example, one of their gambling advertisers was taking bets on whether or not Jennifer Lopez and Ben Affleck would get married by a certain date. You were betting with, and stood a chance to win or lose, real money.

    I can't remember now whether it was GoldenPalace.com or BetOnSports.com doing that particular promotion... Both of them are Stern show sponsors, and both of them are based offshore. But wacky, offbeat bets show up at online casinos from time to time.

    --
    "BSD: Free as in speech. Linux: Free as in beer. Windows 10: Free as in herpes." --Man On Pink Corner in #52607549.
    1. Re:Offshore casinos, for one by tiled_rainbows · · Score: 3, Informative

      From what you say, it sounds as though this kind of thing is much less common in the US than in Britain (where I am). Here in the UK, where gambling is much more legally, and socially, acceptable, bookies (high street gambling shops) take bets on most things that can be bet on. Huge amounts of money change hands during the general elections. And in political reporting, for example with the recent leadership challenge to the leader of the opposition, it's very common for the reporters to quote the odds given to various outcomes by the big bookies.
      Other non-sports bets include:
      Celebrity and royal marriages / breakups.
      The Booker Prize (a bit like your national book award, I think)
      Outcomes of television programmes such as Big Brother
      The weather on Christmas day (snow / not snow).

      I even heard a science programme about SETI on the radio where they got a big bookie to give odds on the discovery of alien intelligence.

    2. Re:Offshore casinos, for one by radish · · Score: 1

      And the sports indicies are even more similar to this. I forget any of the names but there are a whole bunch of indicies where you can buy futures and options on sporting events and other major happenings. People buy "stock" in them for (large amounts of) real money. I know several people who I work with who participate and win/lose substantial figures regularly.

      --

      ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

  25. My Hand? Invisible Hand? Someone else did this... by weston · · Score: 1

    Someone else was doing this circa 1998/1999 IIRC... myhand.com? Invible Hand? They had exactly this kind of market, but with funny money. There were bets on the outcome of Madonna's upcoming release, whether who would win the GOP and DNC 2000 Presidential nominations, and bets on tech stuff too... anyone else recall this?

  26. Bayes Theorem by GrumpyDog · · Score: 1
    I don't know why people think this is strange. The military program, and this one, is similar in theory to one of the logical/statistical tools the Navy uses to find lost submarines, a version of Bayes theorem of subjective probablility. Its a type of staistical game theory.

    The jist of the theory is, a panel of experts would make a educated "bet" based soley on intuition, and the average of their guesses usually came up with "close" answers. That is what these two project are hoping to achieve, a cummulative, and perdictive, "best guess".

    I read about it in Blind Man's Bluff book (Sherry Sintag, Christopher Drew, pub. 1999). A historical book about submarine espionage.

    1. Re:Bayes Theorem by cj79 · · Score: 1

      The jist of the theory is, a panel of experts would make a educated "bet" based soley on intuition, and the average of their guesses usually came up with "close" answers. That is what these two project are hoping to achieve, a cummulative, and perdictive, "best guess".

      ...and, the more participants you have, the more accurate the consensus is likely to be. While newsfutures has ~12,000 registered (but not necessarily active) users, the sports betting industry is huge.

      I tested this in the sports section of newsfutures.com.. Hypothesis: in general, the Vegas lines will be more accurate than the "going rate" on newsfutures. Fast-forward a year or so, and I reached as high as #7 in the rankings and never fell out of the top 20 thereafter. (Note: I turned the initial $10,000 into $4 million using this simple concept)

      On a side note, is picking games in today's NFL any more scientific than finding a lost submarine? :)

    2. Re:Bayes Theorem by GrumpyDog · · Score: 1

      Exactly as I was trying to say. So why not use a theory like this to predict terrorism, or market futures? Time will tell if your wrong, but there is evidence that it does work(yeah, even football).

  27. You need RISK to gamble... by SoVi3t · · Score: 1

    How about the same thing that stops it from being legal to gamble on professional wrestling. You can only gamble on what's technically a RISK. If the outcome is possibly known, there is no risk involved, and thus no reason for Vegas to make it something to gamble on. That would result in them losing money, which = bad.

    --
    Defender of Microsoft and Communism!!!
    1. Re:You need RISK to gamble... by RasputinAXP · · Score: 1

      and here I thought you meant gambling on Risk.

      Which is always a dangerous prospect if you don't hold all the purple Australoasian countries. Build up from there.

      South America's good for that too.

  28. PAY UP BASTARD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    1. Re:PAY UP BASTARD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      $50 says you ain't gonna see the money.

  29. Has the NSA been notified? by windside · · Score: 1

    Maybe they can use this as a testbed for their incredibly well-thought out "terrorism futures exchange", an idea which was unfortunately scuttled, probably by the communists.

    They could shake things up by combining the two overarching themes: Will Microsoft hire mercenaries to keep Linux out of the Sudan? Will Lars Ulrich be assassinated by a rogue faction of the EFF? Who the devil is Wintermute?

    windside
    --

    --
    ...Whether my Maker is prepared for the great ordeal of meeting me is another matter.
    Churchill
  30. Iowa Electronic Markets by jhunsake · · Score: 2, Informative

    The Iowa Electronic Markets at the University of Iowa has had this for a long time. And it does use real money, and is fully legal.

  31. Shockwave Rider was there first by Jack+William+Bell · · Score: 1

    All this is very similar to the 'Delphi' futures betting system described by SF writer John Brunner in his novel 'Shockwave Rider'. Yet another case of Science Fiction getting there first I think.

    Note that Brunner described some bad consequences of such a system, as well as the advantages. Also note that 'Shockwave Rider' is the 'book of honor' this year for the literary SF convention Potlatch which will be in Seattle next Febuary...

    --
    - -
    Are you an SF Fan? Are you a Tru-Fan?
  32. Sladot strikes again! by richie2000 · · Score: 2, Funny
    Offline
    Sorry our servers are temporarily unavailable. Please try again latter.

    Not only did we cause their server to go off-line, we caused them to start spelling wrong, too! Now just wait until they re-launch the same service tomorrow, pretending they haven't noticed it's a dupe...

    --
    Money for nothing, pix for free
  33. OK, get it straight by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 0, Troll
    When MIT establishes a futures market for ideas, it's good.

    When the U.S.A. does the same thing, it's bad.

    That concludes our lesson for today. Remember class, your essays on Marx are due next week, and extra credit for anyone who comes to the church service disruption scheduled for Sunday.

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    1. Re:OK, get it straight by Sivaram_Velauthapill · · Score: 1

      I am an anti-capitalist and don't think you can get the truth from the markets. Having said that...

      The difference is... one is academic while the other is for government purposes. There is a big difference between the two. It's too bad you don't see the difference. In any case, I am not against USA doing it; I am against anyone doing it. It doesn't matter if it is another country or not, same opinion.

      That ends the evil Marxist view...

      Sivaram Velauthapillai

      --
      Sivaram Velauthapillai
      Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)
    2. Re:OK, get it straight by AuMatar · · Score: 1

      Actually, a socialist view would want it run by the state, and NOT private industry.

      Too bad, you lose.

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    3. Re:OK, get it straight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are the one not getting it straight. :)

      There are quite a few differences. For one, there is a difference in what you are betting on (terrorism vs something more productive). The second is what your gain is going to be (42" plasma TV vs real cash). The incentives are quite different to play and "game" the system.

      Think some more and you'll discover other differences.

    4. Re:OK, get it straight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Oh come on, you're misrepresenting and oversimplifying the issues and you know it.

      The terrorist futures market (your "U.S.A" futures market) was to allow people to bet real money on when/where the next terrorist attack was going to occur. This creates an incentive for those trading in those futures to help make sure the attacks happen so as to cash in on their investment. People would literally be betting on other peoples' lives; a rather morbid idea, don't you think? Especially considering that the terrorists themselves could (if the program were expanded to allow more than just select govn't individuals) bet on their own plans.

      MIT's futures market is not betting on human life, and for that matter, does not even involve real money. You might as well be playing Monopoly; the real value gained from participating is the same (except that with the MIT futures market, you might see cool new stuff developed as a result of the interest of people who think it likely that a given idea will come to fruition).

      One market bets on life, using real money. The other bets on ideas/concepts, using fake money.

      Look, I'm a seriously tax-hating, free-market loving, communist-hating "economics-drives-everything" libertarian, and still I oppose(d) the terrorist futures market on the grounds that it creates financial incentive to end human life.

      I read a report in some business magazine (Fortune? Forbes?) about the creator of that market - a PhD economics professor. His intentions were excellent, but the problem is that he is so far out of the loop from the rest of society that he didn't realize that people would find such a market morally-repugnant.

      "Get it straight"? Speak for yourself. Get your issues straight before committing them to /. first (yada yada, insert "you must be new here" and get +5 funny for it... I'm just too lazy to create an account, but if I did, you would get modded down hardcore-style)

    5. Re:OK, get it straight by danila · · Score: 2, Insightful

      still I oppose(d) the terrorist futures market on the grounds that it creates financial incentive to end human life.

      That was really stupid. You can't be a libertarian if you allow your emotions to overcome your intelligence so quickly. I mean, I understand perfectly, why some people would be up in arms about the "terrorism market" (because they are idiots), but the arguments simply do not hold water. Whatever financial incentive there might be to commit the act, do you honestly believe that it can be in any way comparable to the risks and the expected value of losses? I mean, what sane person would do a terrorist act for a few thousand dollars? And you can't win more, because what would FBI think when you bet 1 million $ on a terrorist act and it happens? You call that incentive to commit the act, I call it incentive to disclose the information about it.

      Nobody said (except for conservative wackos like yourself) that participants will be rewarded for successful terrorist acts and not for those that are prevented. What makes you think that the exchange would not reward people for successful predictions that would have resulted in a prevented terrorist act.

      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
    6. Re:OK, get it straight by freeweed · · Score: 1

      You can't be a libertarian...what sane person would do a terrorist act for a few thousand dollars?

      No one ever claimed all Libertarians are sane :)

      (Before you mod me as flamebait, I'm card-carrying. Libertarian, that is, not mental patient)

      --
      Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
    7. Re:OK, get it straight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't be a libertarian if you allow your emotions to overcome your intelligence so quickly.

      Ad-hominem attack. But I should expect no less from leftists like yourself.

      Whatever financial incentive there might be to commit the act, do you honestly believe that it can be in any way comparable to the risks and the expected value of losses?

      That depends entirely on how much is at stake. What is worth more to a terrorist who does not value life -- a few thousand dollars or a few hundred lives?

      I mean, what sane person would do a terrorist act for a few thousand dollars?

      What sane person hijacks a plane and slams it into a symbol of American power? Don't they realize the backlash they will receive? Well - no, they don't, because they're blinded by religious fanaticism. So too, can investors be blinded by fanaticism.

      What happens if you have multiple people, each investing a few thousand dollars?

      Let's say the 19 hijackers on 9/11 each bet $10,000 that planes would slam into the WTC and Pentagon. Result? $190,000 profit for their surviving families. That's a fair amount of money for the families of the countries where they came from (Saudi Arabia, primarily).

      Their mindset would be that they already don't care about American lives -- might as well take advantage of our supposedly-capitalist (actually crony-capitalist) system and use it to build the lives of their families after they're gone too!

      And you can't win more, because what would FBI think when you bet 1 million $ on a terrorist act and it happens?

      Assuming the market were sufficiently-large and well-invested, they might not think *anything* of it. Do you realize, for example, that foreign exchange markets perform about $1.5 trillion in transactions every day? That is a huge sum, and a million dollars easily gets lost among the rest.

      Besides, assuming the market were opened to the rest of the world (like most of our trading markets are), somebody could invest from overseas and commit the terrorist act outside the U.S. Because the FBI has no jursidiction outside the U.S., they cannot investigate anything more than the fact that a few hundred thousand $'s were invested.

      Besides, insider trading happens all the time. You only hear about the Martha Stewarts of the world actually getting caught.

      Nobody said (except for conservative wackos like yourself) that participants will be rewarded for successful terrorist acts and not for those that are prevented.

      Me = "conservative wacko" (yeah, sure), you = liberal loonie, like most of Slashdot.

      Do you have any idea how hard it is to prevent terrorist attacks? Who is going to stop a dedicated attacker? Hmmm? Even our much-vaunted CIA, NSA, and FBI can't stop them all. Or have you been living in a cave for the last 2 years and miss 9/11?

      What makes you think that the exchange would not reward people for successful predictions that would have resulted in a prevented terrorist act.

      I never said the exchange *wouldn't* allow for it. However, I highly doubt that the Islamic religious-zealots who seem to be responsible for the majority of the terrorist acts in the last 30 years or so are going to be overcome by their wives or friends (who are also likely religious extremists) trying to stop them from pursuing their crusade "in the name of Allah!"

      For that matter, their governments aren't going to try very hard to stop them either, unless the governments themselves started trading in the market. But then, that would allow those governments to also bet that terrorist acts *will* happen -- and it is *much* easier for a government to ensure an attack will occur than it is for your average citizen. Do you really want that?

    8. Re:OK, get it straight by danila · · Score: 1

      That depends entirely on how much is at stake. What is worth more to a terrorist who does not value life -- a few thousand dollars or a few hundred lives?
      The original point is still valid - normal people will not become terrorists because of the ability to profit in this perverted way and terrorists usually have other reasons to commit their acts.

      What sane person hijacks a plane and slams it into a symbol of American power? Don't they realize the backlash they will receive? Well - no, they don't, because they're blinded by religious fanaticism.
      Backlash? I think that was the whole point to make America pissed off. I am not arguing that terrorists are sane. I am arguing that sane people will not become terrorists because of this market.

      Let's say the 19 hijackers on 9/11 each bet $10,000 that planes would slam into the WTC and Pentagon. Result? $190,000 profit for their surviving families.
      Well, the whole point of the market is to try to prevent terrorism, not for people to profit (that's a side effect). I suspect that someone from FBI or CIA might (just might) become interested in these bets. I mean, you see 19 Arabs betting money that planes will slam into the WTC. What exactly is the reason they do it? Can they know something? Even given the helplessness of the FBI and CIA, I believe there is at least a 0.01% chance that they will be able to prevent the attack, given such an obvious hint. Since the US lost several tens of billions because of the 9/11, paying 200000$ even for a 0.01% chance to prevent the loss is a bargain.

      might as well take advantage of our supposedly-capitalist (actually crony-capitalist) system
      And we might as well take advantage of their greed.

      Do you realize, for example, that foreign exchange markets perform about $1.5 trillion in transactions every day?
      Of course, the proposed market was not experimental in any way, right? Surely people would immediately start trading trillions of dollars there. Yeah. This was an experiment, which would be done in a highly controlled environment first. If it proved successful in the trial, then it might have been changed into a full fledged idea futures market.

      Who is going to stop a dedicated attacker?
      It's all about chances. If you can very cheaply do something that has a decent chance of helping prevent a terrorist act, it is a good idea to try.

      I never said the exchange *wouldn't* allow for it. However, I highly doubt that the Islamic religious-zealots who seem to be responsible for the majority of the terrorist acts in the last 30 years or so are going to be overcome by their wives or friends (who are also likely religious extremists) trying to stop them from pursuing their crusade "in the name of Allah!"
      You really are very stupid. But I will patiently try to explain.

      With the information about the bets currently made on the market, FBI/CIA will be able to prevent terrorism, not wives or friends (WTF?). When I call police and warn them about a bomb in the mall, they go, check and disarm it. When several people will bet money on the market that there will be a bomb in the mall on such and such date, police will do the same. The end result? A terrorist act did not happen, people are safe. What about the better? Since the terrorist act was obviously planned, a person gets the money for the correct prediction.

      You may ask, what if people will start planting the bombs just to collect the money? Well, this is not currently a problem. If it ever becomes one, the market can be closed and we will be back to the starting point. But if it doesn't, we will have a useful tool to save some lives.

      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
    9. Re:OK, get it straight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am not arguing that terrorists are sane. I am arguing that sane people will not become terrorists because of this market.

      Are you sure? Wouldn't a potential sane-->insane transformation perhaps depend on the amount the "sane" investor has invested? People do strange, even dangerous things when they have lots of money on the line. Then again, I suppose this creates a cycle -- an investor goes nuts after losing lots of money, so then other investors bet on how long it will be before the formerly-sane investor starts committing terrorist acts...

      Fundamentally what you're ignoring is that terrorists and insane people (these aren't necessarily one and the same) will invest in the market, and will do everything in their power to ensure that they get a return on their investment.

      I believe there is at least a 0.01% chance that they will be able to prevent the attack,

      Despite the claims of religious people everywhere, beliefs are not facts. And 86.793% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

      This was an experiment, which would be done in a highly controlled environment first. If it proved successful in the trial, then it might have been changed into a full fledged idea futures market.

      Exactly. It begins as an experiment, as do all ideas and tests of theories. If it is successful, it grows into a production operation -- but oftentimes, expanding to a larger scale in this way introduces problems that were not discovered in testing. Such "problems" include people like OBL and Saddam Hussein betting on where they're likely to kill next. And who would know better than the killers themselves?

      I would have no problem whatsoever with the terrorism futures market if it did not involve people having a significant (say, no more than $50 total per event on which one could bet) vested interest in the outcome of the events, i.e., if it involved "Monopoly money," I would happily support the idea. And I think there are plenty of people with enough spare time and interest that such a market could actually gain enough interest to have a reasonable population of investments, though how useful it would be is debateable. But so long as one man *can* have a interest (by investing significantly in a person's likely death) in seeing that another man dies, I cannot support the idea.

      The truth of the matter is that the vast majority of people don't have any idea when the next terrorist attack will occur. Even our "intelligence" agencies are not extremely-reliable sources. Without any real, hard evidence (unless one is a terrorist themselves, performing insider trading), most of the investments would wind up being noise.

      Unlike the business world, where every publicly-traded company releases information about their work to entice people to invest in their company, terrorist organizations rarely release any information beyond the standard "We will kill you, Allah says the imperialist American pigs must die," etc. There just aren't whole sections of the newspaper and whole segments in TV news broadcasts dedicated to the latest trends in terrorism like there are for business.

      IOW, where does your average investor get their information?

      You really are very stupid. But I will patiently try to explain.

      Thanks for the compliment. Do you have a small penis?

      You didn't make it clear *who* would be preventing the attacks -- it could be the FBI (domestically), CIA (internationally), the police force of a given jurisdiction, or it could be stopped without any government intervention whatsoever (by friends/relatives, as I suggested). You really are the stupid one here for apparently not realizing that not all crimes are prevented or solved by law-enforcement.

      Intelligent people write clearly. You didn't write clearly enough.

    10. Re:OK, get it straight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are the one misrepresenting the terror futures market. The participants would not have been anonymous, so deliberatly executing and profiting off of a terrorist act would leave a paper trail.

      The real problem with the terror market is that the fact that the govt is trying to stop the acts that you are betting on offers sort of a disincintive to get it.

    11. Re:OK, get it straight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are the one misrepresenting the terror futures market. The participants would not have been anonymous, so deliberatly executing and profiting off of a terrorist act would leave a paper trail.

      What, and identities can't be faked? Come on...

  34. Re:Foresight Exchange has been doing this for year by Sivaram_Velauthapill · · Score: 1

    I agree that games like these, with no identity checks, are open to cheating. However, I don't understand your cheating method. I just signed up so I don't know the full rules yet, but I don't think you can "funnel money from one account to the next".

    Related to your point, I'm wondering if it is possible to launder money via stock exchanges (sort of like what you described, although I think you need more sophisticated methods). Can a drug dealer in Colombia transfer money to some corrupt DEA agent in New York by using stock markets?

    Sivaram Velauthapillai

    --
    Sivaram Velauthapillai
    Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)
  35. Erm... by gasaraki · · Score: 0

    Why is this story in the "games" section? I don't get it.

  36. Re:Foresight Exchange has been doing this for year by Hank+Reardon · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Can a drug dealer in Colombia transfer money to some corrupt DEA agent in New York by using stock markets?

    Possible, but unlikely. Money laundering schemes normally work by routing "dirty" money through a "clean" operation with a small cut being taken by whoever's doing the washing. You'd want to make sure that you're money isn't at any more risk than normal, and the stock market would inject too much risk into the transaction. Not to mention that huge bidirectional trades of stock in a short time can cause the SEC to blink.

    Far better to have a legitimate shell corporation hire the DEA agent for "security consultations" for some exorbanant hourly fee and move the money that way.

    At least, that's how the whole laundering thing was explained to me. I'm not an accountant, I just write their software...

    --
    There's so little difference between politics and jihad lately...
  37. Stupid by Galvatron · · Score: 1

    There's no penalty for failure! People will exhibit risk-seeking behavior, "investing" in longshots like cold fusion, because the rewards are only given to the very highest earners. Also, there's no political categories, which is no fun. I'll stick with Tradesports.com (I find it highly amusing that for the Democratic presidential nomination, Hillary Clinton was beating out everyone except Dean and Clark, and Clinton's not even running! She's started slipping, I guess people are finally getting the message that she's not changing her mind)

    --
    "The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
  38. Re:Will the closed internet at USC/Berkley get hac by ajs318 · · Score: 1

    If I lay a cable between my neighbours' house and mine, and connect my switch to their switch, and neither of us are connected to any other computer, how do you think anybody is going to tap into that? Only by physically compromising the cable is how. They would have to cut it, crimp on some new connectors and plug each one into their own switch. They would have 10 nanoseconds to perform this whole operation between successive data bits. Good luck to 'em trying, I say.

    --
    Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
  39. Cheating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Grow up, kiddies. It is by definition possible to cheat at any game. If it wasn't possible to cheat, it wouldn't be a game - it would be a test.

  40. Re:Foresight Exchange has been doing this for year by cameldrv · · Score: 2, Informative

    The way this works on FX is this: You want to move money from player A to player B. You find a thinly traded claim, say currently trading at a price of 50. Player A offers to sell a bunch at 20. Immediately, most of the other orders on the board will execute, but you picked a thinly traded claim, so they should represent a relatively small fraction of the ammount you wished to move. Now there is a big offer to sell on the board for 20, which player B scoops up. Then the process is reversed, with player A offering to buy at 70. Player B then unloads the claims he bought at 20 for 70 to player A. There are a lot of variations on this theme with multiple accounts and such, that you could think up.

    In the stock market, it's a lot harder to do this type of thing, because of several factors. First, there aren't any stocks that are as thinly traded as the thinnest claims on FX. Second, even if you pick the smallest stock off the pink sheets, you will be dealing with a broker. If you offer to buy at a very high price or sell at a very low one, the broker may just execute the transaction for himself, or with another market maker. If you execute on an ECN, someone else may snag the trade before you have a chance to yourself. Furthermore, in its pure form, you need to be able to sell short. You usually can't do this on a penny stock. Furthermore, these transactions are logged, and this type of transaction would be likely to arouse suspicion if you were way out of line with the market. Therefore, it would be tough to do this with good efficiency, because the other traders and commissions would eat into the money you were trying to transfer.

  41. Insider Trading by gerf · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Becomes a whole lot easier. Imagine the corruption! This stuff is a lot LESS random than sports events, which can be 'thrown' are a lot easier to spot as frauds.

    I'm just waiting for the disgruntled engineer to whisper to his cousin to place his money on the new Intel Hypertanic chip to be released in Q4. Then flee with the millions reaped. Puh-leez, this ==lame idea;

  42. Gaming the system by xyote · · Score: 1
    The problem is that it's just a game, as in game theory, just a set of arbitrary rules. The selection of those rules is determined more by who gets the most advantage than by any form of reality check. The stock market is only a good predicter of the stock market. Right now the stock market is rising so things must be "good", right? Tell that to all the thousands of unemployed.


    There's also the assumption that there are a core group of "experts" who really are good at predicting things. Studies of sucessful entrepreneurs show they are no better at subsequent ventures than anyone else. What you are really looking at is luck and mistaking it for something else. And don't think that making money once you have a lot of money means anything. Remember, the system is gamed in their favour.

  43. Viagra futures! by maysonl · · Score: 1

    I just made about 34% in about 4 hours betting on Viagra futures. I can see how day-traders can get hooked.

  44. Re:My Hand? Invisible Hand? Someone else did this. by rockinsteve · · Score: 1

    Yep, myhand.com was the domain. Invisible Hand was the site name. It was a site that I started. I am happy that you remembered. We later raised some VC money, changed the name, and lost the VC money. I still own all the code for it and been wondering whether I should GPL it.

  45. Speculative Bubbles = Noninformative Prices by G4from128k · · Score: 2, Insightful

    One core assumption of these types of trading markets is that the price of the item is tied to some objective value. In an ideas market, the price should reflect the probability that the stated idea or proposition will be true. Under this assumption, people could use the price of the idea as a proxy for the probability that the idea is true (and make product development or VC decisions with the information).

    But some traders act not on the intrinsic value of the item underlying the tradable instrument, they act on the movement of the price. Thus they might buy in on a idea, not because it is undervalued, but because they think the price will go up. Such speculators profit from short-term trades. Called momentum trading, it is a good way to create a bubble in the price that has nothing to do with the true value of the idea or probability that the idea will come to pass.

    Markets like this ideas market and the stock market tend to reflect both rational economic facts and human subjective thought patterns. The problem is that one can never tell when the price represents reality or a mass dillusion.

    --
    Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
    1. Re:Speculative Bubbles = Noninformative Prices by Best+ID+Ever! · · Score: 1

      This isn't insightful at all. Markets have bubbles, markets can be gamed, amd participants can be misinformed. We know this already.

      The question is whether they are better than the "expert" opinion, or if perhaps they are informative enough to be used in conjunction with the expert opinion. Only a fool would claim that an information market could predict the future with absolute certainty. But can they do a good job? Experiments to date seem to say yes.

  46. Slashdot = DDos Attack? by G4from128k · · Score: 1

    I wonder when some site owner is going to get irate over a slashdotting? The slashdot effect demonstrates one of the core flaws of the internet -- the connectivity to each node vastly exceeds the scalability of each node. It is too easy for a single node to become the focus of an unsustainable level of traffic.

    I wonder if there will ever be a ubiquitous opensource equivalent to Akamai's distributed caching system? Although it would be hard to do with dynamic content, static content could be automatically cached in transit. Requests for static web pages that are heading to a destination would be quickly compared to the reverse flow of pages that are in-cache. If the desired page is already there, the protocol would snarf a copy of the in-cache page instead of routing the request all the way to the destination server (actually, it might route the request, but flag it as "fulfilled").

    Do any of the multicasting protocols handle this type of on-the-fly, mid-network rebroadcast from cache?

    --
    Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
    1. Re:Slashdot = DDos Attack? by Tazzy531 · · Score: 1

      That idea is vulnerable to a whole number of issues. First of all, on the internet, no node is trusted. So if routers in between are sending back something and claiming to be from the destination, that router pretty much has hijacked that transaction between the user and the server.

      --


      _______________________________
      "I'm not Conceited...I'm just a realist..."
  47. this is the future of paying for free content by tperry256 · · Score: 1

    I really think there will be some kind of securities market based solution for paying free content producers in 25 years, and this is a step in that direction. It's not a pyramid scheme, because when you put money into the hands of *highly productive* free content producers, they will make enough free content to ensure increasing overall wealth/intrinsic value in the economy to keep the market prices rising so that all good investors can expect a return on their investment in the long term. The bigger the market gets, the more efficiently in will distribute money because knowing people will be able to profit from incorrectly priced shares. This is the model we want, because outright donations will be used less efficiently as they get bigger.

  48. How open is this... by Epistax · · Score: 1

    In the same way that Fox will turn into a hardcore sex network in the next 30 years gradually enough to avoid the sensors, this betting could turn into exactly what the pentagon tried to do.

    2004: When will helicopter prototype X be released.
    2007: How long until the first helicopter X will be shot down?
    2008: When and where will the next helicopter X be shot down?
    2009: What is the current mailing address and phone numer of the next person who will shoot down a helicopter X?

  49. Betting on lives = life insurance by G4from128k · · Score: 1

    People would literally be betting on other peoples' lives; a rather morbid idea, don't you think?

    It may seem morbid and morally repugnant, but its a trillion dollar industry that has been going on for hundreds of years. The entire life insurance industry (including annuities and death benefits) is all about betting on peoples lives. And liability insurance on big construction projects includes bets on the number of lives lost on the project -- the contractors often get a bonus if not too many lives are lost.

    There is nothing wrong with buying and selling risk - many people are willing to buy certainty in an uncertain world. And what bigger uncertainty is there than the uncertainty of when someone will die?

    --
    Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
    1. Re:Betting on lives = life insurance by Best+ID+Ever! · · Score: 1

      Ah, life insurance: a bet which you hope to lose.

    2. Re:Betting on lives = life insurance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a very-significant difference though:

      With life insurance, one invests for their *own* death. and the insurance company invests against it, i.e., I invest in favor of my inevitable death -- but so long as I don't die, the insurance company continues to make money off of me. That's why elderly people have a nearly-impossible time obtaining life insurance. And since I don't gain from the profits of dying (although my estate recipients would), there is a far-smaller chance of me trying to screw the insurance company than the other way around, particularly when I'm young.

      With terrorism futures, one invests for or against *somebody else's* death. I couldn't care less if somebody dies, therefore, without any money involved, I'm indifferent to an unknown person's death. If I invest money in the likelihood that that unknown person will die, then I've changed my attitude from indifference to preferring that person to die, so that I reap a profit on my investment. IOW, I prefer that that unknown person get killed so that I return a profit.

      Likewise, somebody else could be investing in *MY* death. Do I want that? Absolutely not.

  50. Delphic Lottery? by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

    Sounds like the Delphic Lottery from Larry Niven's Ringworld and related stories.

    Larry should have taken out a patent on it.

  51. LongBets by slank · · Score: 1

    tried submitting this when I learned about it:

    http://www.longbets.org/

    It's a similar concept, and there are some very familiar names making wagers (Dave Winer, Eric Schmidt, Vint Cerf, even Ted Danson)

  52. Not quite like other futures by gr8_phk · · Score: 1

    In a regular futures market, you're not gambling in a pure sense. Your commiting to buy something (a real tangible something) at some future date for a price you specify today. If that thing becomes more or less valuable by the time you are obligated to buy it then you win or lose money. Generally you sell your contract before the due date, and there is always someone who needs/uses the product that picks it up at the end. This is a bit different than betting on events. What is the market value of an event happening or not? I think this is a fancy way to disguise pure gambling as a legitimate financial instrument.

    1. Re:Not quite like other futures by Best+ID+Ever! · · Score: 1

      Your commiting to buy something (a real tangible something) at some future date for a price you specify today. If that thing becomes more or less valuable by the time you are obligated to buy it then you win or lose money. Generally you sell your contract before the due date, and there is always someone who needs/uses the product that picks it up at the end.

      What you've just described is a bet that the price will increase. While there are non-speculative reasons to use the futures market (i.e. mitigation of risk to the buyer or seller), there's plenty of price speculators who do exactly what you described. Is it gambling?

      I think this is a fancy way to disguise pure gambling as a legitimate financial instrument.

      A legitimate financial instrument like, say, a derivative? Who decides what is legitimate?

  53. real money, fake money, what's the diff? by Eil · · Score: 1


    Okay, so here's a game whereupon the players gamble with fake money for fun and entertainment. They never see a dime of real money, ever. (Unless they happen to fall into the top 8 when the game is over.)

    Note, however, that in order to gain full access to the game, you do indeed have to PAY THEM real money.

    What a bargain.

  54. This is odd by Dudio · · Score: 1

    Ok, I started on this page, which was linked in the story. I found this link, which is presented as a link to registration in the section labeled "How can I get x$ to start playing?". Interestingly, this link is to an outside domain, nf4.newsfutures.com. More interestingly, nf4.newsfutures.com presents a self-issued SSL certificate with a common name of www.snakeoil.dom and issuing CA of Snake Oil CA.

    Ok, so I start to think this is all an elaborate hoax. However, when I click through the link at the top of the left-side navigation bar labeled Trading Account(s), I get sent to a Technology Review registration page, after which I am asked for a trading name in order to setup a trading account. It appears that it is not a hox after all.

    So WTF is this link to nf4.newsfutures.com? It's obviously not a placeholder, as it points to an existing domain with a joke certificate. I don't get it.

  55. RETRACT by Eil · · Score: 1


    Whoops, I retract the above post. Turns out that you can pay for premium access to the *magazine*, not the game. I was misled by some text on the account creation page. Moderators, do your thing.

  56. Try Ideosphere: +10, Informative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's
    been around since 1995.

  57. when Gates becomes a trillionaire? by peter303 · · Score: 1

    People were predict like 2015, based on M$ "Moore's Law" growth in stock price in the 1990s. Now the stock price has been stuck at the same place for over three years, and not as likely.

  58. Powered by Newsfutures.com by mnemonic_ · · Score: 1

    Seemed like the whole system was developed by MIT students and/or faculty, but it was not.

  59. Re:NanoRoboQuantumFiCancerRods improved II by mnemotronic · · Score: 1

    .... aero-ergo-turbo.

    --
    The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
  60. Without real money, this dosn't make sense. by Sir.Cracked · · Score: 1

    The whole idea of using a market based system to get a poll sample is based on the idea that people will have more realistic responses if they have their money on the line, even if they don't necessarily agree with that particular outcome. The old "put your money where your mouth is" idea. Without actually putting down some green, it's all just hot air. There is a reason that the IEM was constructed by professors in Economics as well as Poli Sci and others. Because without the Economics part, it's just wanking.

    Also, The concept of an Idea market is also a bit of a miss. When you take something like an election, and simply ask "Who do you think will win" and "By what margin", your questions are without bias towards a particular outcome. With an idea, there is no clear, predictable, final event. Will stock X go up? Yes. How much? In what time period? What if No one is right? What if the market takes a powerdive no one expected? Or a terrorist event causes the market to be closed for a day? How do I buy THAT stock? And that's even an idea that's easy to track, and has a two dimensional plane of movement. In the end it's silly because we don't NEED a meta-market for the actual stock market. We already HAVE the stock market, which does that job nicely. How would you track more nebulous ideas, that have no prediction market, but more unpredictable outcomes? Not with a market of this type.

    The current stock market works because it takes all the factors of the world, and asks a simple question. Will all these things help or hinder this company from making money, and therefore, make this stock valuable or worthless. In this case, our old friend Gordon Gecko was right. Greed is good. It causes this system to work, and without it, there simply IS no stock market, for ideas, companies, politicians or anything else under the sun.

    --
    Where are we going, and why am I in this handbasket?
  61. Do they take Quatloos? by AirDave · · Score: 1

    500 quatloos on the newcomers!! (STOS)

  62. Woah. by Asprin · · Score: 1


    This might be one of the 5 coolest things I've ever seen.

    I was kind of disappointed when the Pentagon cancelled their futures market plans because (even though the program was presented as the macabre plans of an evil genius) it really looked like an interesting experiment for sifting through data and evaluating information. But this... this.... THIS LOOKS LIKE A LOT OF FUN. It's like fantasy football on crack, but with monopoly money and no social diseases.

    Kudos to NewsFutures for putting this together. It's going to be tough to tear myself away from this when HL2 comes out, I just hope rehab isn't going to be too expensive.

    --
    "Lawyers are for sucks."
    - Doug McKenzie
  63. Re:My Hand? Invisible Hand? Someone else did this. by weston · · Score: 1

    I still own all the code for it and been wondering whether I should GPL it.

    I'd be interested to see something like what you had -- which was apparently quite well developed, by the way -- released/active again, despite the fact the wheel is obviously being reinvented. Probably more to your lasting fame and credit to release it rather than keep it ... or perhaps at least find someone willing to donate bandwidth. Unless of course you've got a smart business plan hidden up your sleeve, to jump to step three (Profit!) :)

    Feel free to email me about it!

  64. opinion-exchange.com by orionware · · Score: 1

    Interesting site

    http://www.opinion-exchange.com

    --


    Karma means nothing to me, so suck it...
  65. I like the rules by Carnildo · · Score: 1

    Looking through the rules, I found this little gem (emphasis mine):

    "TR reserves the right to penalize, suspend, disable, and/or destroy the account of any user that it merely suspects has engaged in any negative or cheating behavior, including:
    Using the message boards to spread unlawful, threatening, abusive, libelous, defamatory, obscene, vulgar, pornographic, profane or indecent information of any kind, or any message negatively inclined in any way towards TR, its sponsors partners, their staff, NewsFutures or the Promotion itself."

    --
    "They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
  66. This isn't a futures market by kahei · · Score: 1

    ...it's a market where you trade bets on future events. Not the same.

    --
    Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
  67. square with ignorance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How does this work when 62% of the american
    people know Iraq was behind 9/11? When most
    of them know they are "middle class". When 80%
    of them think they are above average drivers -
    most of whose driving ability **improves** after
    one beer, BTW.

    As an alumni '78, I find Tech Review has become
    quite the embarrasment over the past two or
    three years.

    netboy

  68. Consistency by tqft · · Score: 1

    Last (semi-)serious paper I read on travelling along spacelike curves implied that doing so was only possible if consistency was maintained - you can't go back and change something that would affect "when" you were from.

    Sorry but I dont have the Arxiv ref for you - or whether it was gr-qc, astro, ????. As always use Arxiv with care unlike /., there is no lameness filter, but on "spacelike" will turn it up I think.

    --
    The Singularity is closer than you think
    Quant