Slashdot Mirror


Asimov's Psychohistory Becoming a Reality?

northernboy writes "Today's LA Times has an article describing how a Wikileaks data dump from Afghanistan plus some advanced algorithms are allowing accurate predictions about the behavior of large groups of people. From the article: 'The programmers used simple code to extract dates and locations from about 77,000 incident reports that detailed everything from simple stop-and-search operations to full-fledged battles. The resulting map revealed the outlines of the country's ongoing violence: hot spots near the Pakistani border but not near the Iranian border, and extensive bloodshed along the country's main highway. They did it all in just one night. Now one member of that group has teamed up with mathematicians and computer scientists and taken the project one major step further: They have used the WikiLeaks data to predict the future.' Considering they did not discriminate between types of skirmish, but only when and where there was violence, this seems like an amazing result. It looks like our robotic overlords will have even less trouble controlling us than I previously thought."

291 comments

  1. Obligatory TED reference by Bananatree3 · · Score: 4, Informative
    1. Re:Obligatory TED reference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what he is mapping is the number of insurgent/terrorist bombings and how many is killed in them?

      The whole thing seems like a jumbled mess.

    2. Re:Obligatory TED reference by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 5, Informative

      Quoting Asimov:

      "... and so I assumed that the time would come when there would be a science in which things could be predicted on a probabilistic or statistical basis"

      What Asimov talked about, had actually been researched by many - in a principle known as "group dynamics" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_dynamics

      The LA Times TFA described is mere an extension - by tapping on the powerful computing ability that we have today, and by tapping on the enormous databases that are being gathered (and kept) by private/corporate/governmental agencies around the world, including Facebook, FBI, and so on
       

      --
      Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    3. Re:Obligatory TED reference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just looks like statistical analysis to me.

    4. Re:Obligatory TED reference by mcgrew · · Score: 2

      Actually, this is more impressive than the fictional Dr. Seldon, since the real scientists didn't have the use of any mind-reading robots, or a machine to enhanse the brain function of... er... I forgot what Seldon't partner's name was, been a while since I read the series.

  2. That is no prediction by siddesu · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In the absence of change in circumstances, it is quite obvious that areas of conflict will have more conflict. TFA doesn't say enough about the methodology for one to be able to estimate how valuable it is.

    On the other hand, yet another good thing about the Wikileak emerges. Were those data hidden by the secrecy wall, this research would not have been available to the NATO forces over there. Is secrecy really productive? Was the leak good or bad? Are the costly measures to make future leaks less likely a good investment?

    1. Re:That is no prediction by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      On one hand, I know a person (personally) who knows another person (personally) who was named in the leak who was currently deployed over there. On the other hand, who can say that their identity wasn't already known? On the gripping hand, what the fuck are we actually doing over there anyway?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:That is no prediction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

      We are protecting oil pipelines in Afghanistan. The towns we are deployed in coincidentally run along the pipeline route.

    3. Re:That is no prediction by arthurpaliden · · Score: 2

      You would have to station troops every couple of hundred yards not to mention negotiate and pay off hundreds of tribal and community leaders. Which is why the whole project was shelved even before 9/11 because it is just not worth it.

    4. Re:That is no prediction by sp3d2orbit · · Score: 2, Interesting

      > On the gripping hand, what the fuck are we actually doing over there anyway?

      We are enforcing Afghanistan's 1941 signing of the Declaration of Universal Right of Man. Hopefully by providing an environment where an alternative to the Taliban can establish power we will provide a lasting buffer against their tyranny.

      For those who say it isn't our business to protect the rights of others, that line of thinking was invalidated by WWII and previously in the Civil war.

    5. Re:That is no prediction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ignorance breeds hatred, creating conflicts. Knowledge can reduce hatred, nullifying the conflicts. Knowledge can also increase the damage inflicted by the aggressors. The question is, will introducing knowledge into the system calm the aggression in time to avoid the increased damage, or will the immediate increase in damage nullify any benefits of increased knowledge?

    6. Re:That is no prediction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm, everyone wants a cut? Sounds like the RIAA/MPAA.

    7. Re:That is no prediction by mcrbids · · Score: 1

      With regards to "On the gripping hand", I think you are confusing Larry Niven with Asimov...

      --
      I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    8. Re:That is no prediction by siddesu · · Score: 1

      Depends on the distribution. I'd venture a guess that if the process of distribution creates large asymmetries, more people will be cheated and that will create a stronger perception of the "system" being dishonest and more drive for aggression. If the process removes asymmetries, and people are able to deal with each other honestly, then that source of conflict would be resolved, and one will have to only deal with the various historical and accidental biases. Which may be very significant ;)

    9. Re:That is no prediction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      the Civil War was not about slavery.

      Spoken like a true racist, or moron. The civil war was entirely about slavery.
      There are other minor concerns and justifications and double speak, but if
      there were no slavery, there would have been no war.

    10. Re:That is no prediction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      On the contrary, the civil war was about slavery. The "Preserve the Union"/"State's Rights" slogans were largely marketing BS designed to get people to sign up even when they didn't care to abolish slavery/defend rich-ass slaveholders.

        The notion that the Confederacy was in favor of "State's Rights" is belied by the fact that among their earliest acts ratified was one that decreed that no state in the Confederacy would have the right to abolish slavery within its territory. The Confederacy defended slaveholders first and foremost.

    11. Re:That is no prediction by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      He weren't broke during WWII and the Civil War was not about slavery.

      The American Civil Was was about *more* than slavery, but it's ridiculous to say that it wasn't about slavery.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    12. Re:That is no prediction by slew · · Score: 5, Insightful

      [W]e weren't broke during WWII and the Civil War was not about slavery.

      Actually we were pretty broke during WWII. Remember WWII was right after the great depression and many think it was the event that allowed us to pull out of the depression. The US treasury debt was ~$40B in 1941, and $250B in 1946 when the war ended. The US financed WWII with lots of warbonds...

      FWIW, I don't think any historians would agree that we fought WWII to protect the rights of any people (other than US self interest). The US entered WWII to stop Japan from gaining too much influence in the Pacific (of course we were at the same time giving lots of money to England in their fight against Germany, but that wasn't really to protect their rights either). History records that it all came to head when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. The fact that Germany wanted to pick a direct fight with the US pretty much gave us no choice but to go over to Europe for real too...

      And of course the Civil war wasn't about slavery, but states rights. Is it okay to secede from the union when you don't get your way? Apparently, no say the winners.

    13. Re:That is no prediction by Black+Parrot · · Score: 4, Insightful

      For those who say it isn't our business to protect the rights of others, that line of thinking was invalidated by WWII and previously in the Civil war.

      So what's our policy for deciding which people's rights get protected?

      Roll the dice, and if their country is important to our strategic economic interests we intervene, otherwise we don't?

      And whose right were we protecting on those occasions that we knocked off or destabilized democratically elected governments to put some thuggish warlord into power?

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    14. Re:That is no prediction by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      So that's why we jumped right into Rwanda in 1994 to stop the genocide from happening there, right? Oh yeah, we didn't, we just let them be slaughtered because there's no oil there.

      And that's why we're in Somalia now, helping to set up a new government, right? Oh yeah, we're not, we're just letting anarchy reign, because there's no oil there.

    15. Re:That is no prediction by an+unsound+mind · · Score: 1

      That line of thinking was invalidated by WWII... how?

      Do you mean the part where the US came in after the Soviets had won the war in Europe and declared itself the winner?

      Or the part where the US took on an opponent that could barely challenge them... and used nuclear weapons in a war already practically won?

      Americans contributed very little to the defeat of the Axis. Most of the fall of the Axis can be attributed to the Nazi military leaders being just plain incompetent. And of course, the Soviet Union, to provide the iceberg for Nazi Germany to ram into.

    16. Re:That is no prediction by InspectorGadget1964 · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I'm sure Jimmy Carter was thinking about protecting the right of others when he approved to provide weapons to the Muhahadeen (Today's Al-Quaida and Taliban). I'm also sure that when George W. Bush said that god told him to go to war he was serious (Yeah, right). And when Obama promised to close the concentration camp in Guantanamo Bay, he had no idea that he was not going to do it. Trusting any US politician is equivalent to reduce your brain to nothing but ballast. They do not act for the people, but on behalf of the corporations that finance their campaigns.

    17. Re:That is no prediction by siddesu · · Score: 1

      Americans contributed very little to the defeat of the Axis.

      In terms of cannon fodder, that is true, most came from the Soviet Union, Europe and the colonies of certain European powers. However, the US provided very significant amount of equipment, without which the Soviets would have probably lost, and who knows what would have happened then.

      Of course, the assistance wasn't free, and the US got a lot in exchange, but to say the contribution was insignificant is not correct.

      As for the nukes, they were used to so much to break Japan (who were pleading for a surrender since at least early 1945), as to stop the Russians from taking over Asia, which they tried to do in earnest after the war in Europe ended.

    18. Re:That is no prediction by SomeKDEUser · · Score: 1

      If lend-lease had been in fvour of Germany instead of the UK, things might have turned very differently. Yes, the cost the US paid in blood in Europe was low, compared to that of the USSR, but the Pacific theatre was costly in terms of men.

      All in all, I agree that the vision of the US marching into Europe as the brave liberator is simplistic, but in the end, free Europe owed to the US in large part its freedom.

    19. Re:That is no prediction by TheLink · · Score: 2

      we were at the same time giving lots of money to England in their fight against Germany

      IIRC lending, not giving. They had to pay it back, and they eventually did.

      --
    20. Re:That is no prediction by jbburks · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The US only entered the war after Japan attacked the US without warning one fine Sunday morning, firing the first shot of the Pacific War. Japan could have surrendered at any point and saved themselves from the atomic bombing. Instead, they were arming women and children with sharpened stakes. The nuclear bombing saved more lives, both US and Japanese than it took.

    21. Re:That is no prediction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      As a rather well known US General is reputed to have said:

      "You don't win wars by dying for your county; you win wars by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country!"

      Before the US entered the war, the Allies were doing more of the former. After the US entered the war, they were doing more of the later (that's true of the Soviets too, by the way).

    22. Re:That is no prediction by cavreader · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Slavery was the most sensationalist and persuasive argument for the Civil War. It made good press coverage and personalized the argument on whether to engage in the war. Slaves did exist and slavery needed to be abolished but the Civil War was a fight against Balkanization. Instead of 50 states we could have ended up going down the path of creating 50 different countries and boy wouldn't that be fun.

    23. Re:That is no prediction by The+Snowman · · Score: 5, Informative

      The American Civil Was was about *more* than slavery, but it's ridiculous to say that it wasn't about slavery.

      My U.S. History professor, who wrote a dissertation about the civil war, agrees but in a slightly different way. He said it was an economic war. It just so happened that the economics of the South were based on slave labor. So while Congressmen in both chambers of Congress from both sides of the Mason-Dixon line were debating economic strife, the underlying issue was that the South made their money on the backs of slaves, while the North made their money on the backs of poor lower-class workers who were exploited just as bad but were free to walk away from their jobs.

      Nothing was good about either side in those times, but the North was slightly less bad.

      --
      24 beers in a case, 24 hours in a day. Coincidence? I think not!
    24. Re:That is no prediction by The+Snowman · · Score: 2

      FWIW, I don't think any historians would agree that we fought WWII to protect the rights of any people (other than US self interest). The US entered WWII to stop Japan from gaining too much influence in the Pacific (of course we were at the same time giving lots of money to England in their fight against Germany, but that wasn't really to protect their rights either). History records that it all came to head when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. The fact that Germany wanted to pick a direct fight with the US pretty much gave us no choice but to go over to Europe for real too...

      This is a much more complex and nuanced topic, but it comes down to this: FDR/HST wanted to get involved in the war, but Congress refused to issue a formal declaration (remember the Constitution and its rules about war? Our current politicians don't). Japan attacked us on our soil, giving Congress no option but to declare war against them. Two days (if I remember correctly) they were convinced to declare war on Germany/Italy as well since they basically declared war on us.

      Once war is declared, the thing to remember is this. The 48 states are slightly larger than Europe. We have one government. They have many. At that time, each nation stood alone, not really working together. Since they refused to unite, they were conquered, one by one. The U.S. immediately resolved itself as a single unit to attacking in force. Imagine if Hitler attacked France, but every other European nation banded forces and attacked as a single unit. That would have been like the U.S. slowly steamrolling across Europe from the Atlantic to Berlin, which we did. WW2: The Sequel was won by the fact that the U.S. had far more resources than any single European nation and was motivated to spill its own blood to save our allies (if you fail, the next battles will be on our East coast).

      --
      24 beers in a case, 24 hours in a day. Coincidence? I think not!
    25. Re:That is no prediction by The+Snowman · · Score: 0

      So what's our policy for deciding which people's rights get protected?

      Oil.

      Roll the dice, and if their country is important to our strategic economic interests we intervene, otherwise we don't?

      Forget the dice, read the words between your commas.

      And whose right were we protecting on those occasions that we knocked off or destabilized democratically elected governments to put some thuggish warlord into power?

      Large U.S. corporations who will profit from it, and will consequently pour money into reelection campaigns.

      --
      24 beers in a case, 24 hours in a day. Coincidence? I think not!
    26. Re:That is no prediction by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      while the North made their money on the backs of poor lower-class workers who were exploited just as bad

      Yeah, all those whippin's and amputations and such that the poor lower-class workers got... er, wait.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    27. Re:That is no prediction by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Saying 'why we fought the war' is extremely problematic. Each person has their own reason for fighting, and for some it is as simple as, "because they attacked us" or "I had nothing to do so I signed up." It may sound too simplistic, but without these people, and people with various other reasons for fighting, there would have been no war. If you want to know why the war was fought, you have to account for each of these people, each of their reasons.

      Of course we can't do that, so we speak in broad generalities. "Americans wanted this" "the fought for this," of course these are overgeneralizations, and not every American even wanted to fight. Some liked Hitler. At the same time, a lot of people surely felt like we were going over there again to save Europe from their own stupid problems.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    28. Re:That is no prediction by artor3 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And whose right were we protecting on those occasions that we knocked off or destabilized democratically elected governments to put some thuggish warlord into power?

      The fact that people who happened to be born in the same 3.5 million square mile area as us did bad things decades ago does not mean that we should never do anything ever again.

      I'm against most wars for purely practical reasons: they're expensive, rarely work, and they kill lots of people. But intervening in other countries to stop atrocities can be a good thing, when done right. Suggesting we should never do so simply because we don't have a good way of deciding where to intervene is foolish. To use the requisite car analogy: I can't come up with a definitive method to make sure I always buy the right car, but that doesn't mean I should never buy a car, just that I should try my best to get it right.

    29. Re:That is no prediction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Japanese had nobody to surrender to. The Allies agreed not to get involved in separatist armistice arrangements after the surrender of Italy. Japan tried to surrender to the US, but its plea for surrender was rejected on several occasions in 1945. The "nuke saving lives" is just a response of the American propaganda to the spontaneous and powerful anti-nuke movement that swept the world at the start of the 50s, when the results of the bombings became apparent.

      Also, the nukes were used in Japan, not against Japan. The available documents of the targeting committee strongly suggest that the reasons were testing the weapons and scaring the Russians. The analyses by the US military that were made post-bombing (45-46) explicitly state that there were no compelling military reasons for the bombings.

    30. Re:That is no prediction by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Roll the dice, and if their country is important to our strategic economic interests we intervene, otherwise we don't?

      Yeah, that's basically it. If your country is not democratic and free (or if it was communist in the past. Not sure if that one works anymore, maybe), then you need to be aware that you have given the US all the excuse it needs to ever invade your country.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    31. Re:That is no prediction by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      And whose right were we protecting on those occasions that we knocked off or destabilized democratically elected governments to put some thuggish warlord into power?

      The fact that people who happened to be born in the same 3.5 million square mile area as us did bad things decades ago does not mean that we should never do anything ever again.

      I'm against most wars for purely practical reasons: they're expensive, rarely work, and they kill lots of people. But intervening in other countries to stop atrocities can be a good thing, when done right. Suggesting we should never do so simply because we don't have a good way of deciding where to intervene is foolish. To use the requisite car analogy: I can't come up with a definitive method to make sure I always buy the right car, but that doesn't mean I should never buy a car, just that I should try my best to get it right.

      Where were we during all the genocides in sub-Saharan Africa over the past few decades?

      We do in fact have a "good way of deciding" where to intervene. It just hasn't got anything to do with protecting people's lives or rights.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    32. Re:That is no prediction by The+Snowman · · Score: 4, Interesting

      while the North made their money on the backs of poor lower-class workers who were exploited just as bad

      Yeah, all those whippin's and amputations and such that the poor lower-class workers got... er, wait.

      Working in crappy factories where injuries were common, to include losing digits, limbs, etc., yeah. Where if you quit, the only other jobs were just as bad. Sure, slaves had to deal with stuff like being whipped, raped, etc. but the living conditions of a slave were comparable to the Northern working class, and the hope of changing one's situation was equally as abysmal. Meanwhile, the crime and other crap the working class in the North dealt with (including beatings, rape, etc) were almost as bad.

      Slavery is evil and was never good. My point is the plight of a non-slave working class in that time was almost as bad. Look at the whole picture: not just the employer/slavedriver, but where did those people live? What did they deal with on a daily basis?

      Makes me grateful that the worst I deal with is my tendonitis and the risk of CTS.

      --
      24 beers in a case, 24 hours in a day. Coincidence? I think not!
    33. Re:That is no prediction by Black+Parrot · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The American Civil Was was about *more* than slavery, but it's ridiculous to say that it wasn't about slavery.

      My U.S. History professor, who wrote a dissertation about the civil war, agrees but in a slightly different way. He said it was an economic war.

      I think it was a broader cultural schism, basically the same thing the parent country worked out in their own civil war a couple of centuries earlier:

      north = roundheads (modernity)

      south = cavaliers (medievality)

      Of course, our esteemed Founding Fathers set us up the bomb with the 3/5 compromise. They wanted a union more than they wanted to deal with the issue of slavery, so they left it for their great-grandchildren to solve.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    34. Re:That is no prediction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And of course the Civil war wasn't about slavery, but states rights.

      The Civil War probably was not about slavery but it certainly was not over state's rights. Secession was pretty much 100% about slavery, though, and without secession there is no war. But, slavery was a small part of the actual war effort.

      Is it okay to secede from the union when you don't get your way? Apparently, no say the winners.

      The losers in this case, too, if you happen to read the Confederate Constitution. It specifically prohibited secession. It also specifically compelled support of slavery, which the US Constitution did not, leaving that matter to individual states. In effect, the Confederate states had fewer rights than before. :)

    35. Re:That is no prediction by Kjella · · Score: 4, Insightful

      History records that it all came to head when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. The fact that Germany wanted to pick a direct fight with the US pretty much gave us no choice but to go over to Europe for real too...

      The attack on Pearl Harbor happened in December 1941, D-day was in June 1944. The turning point in the war was probably in late 1942 so by the time the US got seriously involved in ground combat it was pretty obvious Hitler was going to lose. The invasion was to stop the Soviet Union from taking all of Europe, it was to stop communism not fascism. Ironically that was one of the reasons Hitler got to do all he did, the other European leaders thought he'd stop the commies. You might say that backfired a little when he made a peace treaty with Stalin and invaded westwards instead, if you're going to let a rabid dog loose you'd better make sure he'll bite in the right direction.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    36. Re:That is no prediction by Flere+Imsaho · · Score: 2

      On the gripping hand, what the fuck are we actually doing over there anyway?

      I'm Rod Blaine, and I approve this message.

      --
      It gripped her hand gently. 'Regret is for humans,' it said.
    37. Re:That is no prediction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And that power to enforce continues to degrade by the day as China prepares to kick some butt.

    38. Re:That is no prediction by schlachter · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, yet another good thing about the Wikileak emerges. Were those data hidden by the secrecy wall, this research would not have been available to the NATO forces over there.

      NATO and the DoD are undoubtably running the same kinds of analysis on the data...so this kind of research is most likely already available to the NATO forces in Afganistan. The significance of this is that now it's publicly available.

      --
      My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
    39. Re:That is no prediction by slew · · Score: 4, Informative

      we were at the same time giving lots of money to England in their fight against Germany

      IIRC lending, not giving. They had to pay it back, and they eventually did.

      Better review your history on lend-lease. Basically the US (and Canada) gave stuff to England for token payments (e.g. giving England 50 destroyer in "exchange" for lease payments for new US base locations to be located in former British colonies). Then after the war was over, the US depreciated the value of the lend-lease items by 90% (because now they were "used") and allowed England to "buy" them at the depreciated value with a 2% loan stretched out over 50 years.

      Eventually, the residual of lend-lease was "paid" back on these terms on Dec 2006. Of course England could have paid it back earlier, but a 2% loan was a good deal and they of course paid it back in 50 year inflated money value...

      If that kind of loan would have been made to members of congress, I think many people would have called it a gift... (e.g., lend them a $1M house, depreciate it 90% in 4 years, give them the opportunity to buy it for $100K with a 2% 50 year loan) What would you call it?

      I'm not saying we shouldn't have done it, just calling a spade a spade. That whole lend-lease fiction was just to do an end-around the isolationist republican congress. It wasn't reality...

    40. Re:That is no prediction by kdemetter · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You are right, but you are forgetting the frame of mind of that time.
      I'm sure most lower class workers took it as part of the job, and were happy that they were at least free, and had a job.

      When looking back on history, it always seems cruel, because we are used to higher standards of living.

      For all we know, somewhere in the future, people will pitty us because our foods contained to much salt.

    41. Re:That is no prediction by slew · · Score: 2

      The slavery issue was the main reason for the north/south split, not the reason for the war...

      The US Civil war was certainly about states rights. The north could have just let the southern states leave the union, but the north was not keen on having a resource rich, wealthy adversary nation right next to it that might align itself with Britian, France, and the native americans against the union. Of course there isn't just one reason for the US civil war, but this was the big deal.

      To support this states rights view on the war, you only need to look at contemporaneous events like Emancipation Proclamation. Slaves were only freed in territories that were declared by to be in rebellion. Other slave slates that didn't seceed didn't have their slaves freed (Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, Tennessee). If the war (not the split) was primarly caused by slavery, wouldn't the slave holding states still in the Union be affected by the slave issue? Nope, the primary goal was to get those rebellious states back into the Union.

    42. Re:That is no prediction by n3r0.m4dski11z · · Score: 4, Informative

      Restrepo dude. Afghanistan has a culture of repelling invaders. As in, it is in their shared cultural heritage and defines them as a people. It should be one of the last reformed places on earth. They just want to be left alone.

      --
      -
    43. Re:That is no prediction by metacell · · Score: 2

      > On the gripping hand, what the fuck are we actually doing over there anyway?

      We are enforcing Afghanistan's 1941 signing of the Declaration of Universal Right of Man. Hopefully by providing an environment where an alternative to the Taliban can establish power we will provide a lasting buffer against their tyranny.

      For those who say it isn't our business to protect the rights of others, that line of thinking was invalidated by WWII and previously in the Civil war.

      When you invaded Afghanistan, you said it was because they were harbouring terrorists (presumably because they had a connection to the 9/11 attacks). There are many other countries where human rights violations on the same scale have been committed, that you haven't intervened military in.

      Pulling out of Afghanistan means the country will probably be in chaos for a long time, which not only means lots of human rights violations, but also that it'll remain a breeding ground for Islamistic terrorism. So I think you have good reasons, both idealistic and practical, to stay in Afghanistan until order is restored (if it ever wiill).

    44. Re:That is no prediction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      are undoubtably running the same kinds of analysis on the data

      Undoubtedly to you. And you surely have the evidence to back it up.

    45. Re:That is no prediction by metacell · · Score: 1

      That was interesting. Do you have a handy reference?

      Btw, I hope you get modded Informative.

    46. Re:That is no prediction by ChatHuant · · Score: 3, Interesting

      the South made their money on the backs of slaves, while the North made their money on the backs of poor lower-class workers

      And that made a big difference in the cultures and politics of the two; the South was focused on agriculture, mainly cotton, and failed to develop a diversified industry. Slavery also led to a more highly stratified society, where large slaveholders held a majority of the wealth and the middle class was much smaller and less powerful than in the North. One of the effects of the concentration of political power into the hands of the big plantation owners was the smaller government and lower levels of taxation in the South. Import tarrifs were also low, because Southern manufacturing was so backwards and oriented towards the needs of farmers that most of the industrial products had to be imported. As a result, the quality and availability of public education were low, leading to widespread illiteracy. Those trends produced a conservative society, oriented towards the past, with little interest in science or progress.

      Thinking about it, It's surprising how many of those same differences between the (broadly defined) US North and South cultures are still there today.

    47. Re:That is no prediction by The+Master+Control+P · · Score: 4, Interesting

      At the start of WWII, the alliance system that caused The Great War and the monstrous and pointless slaughter that went on during it were still very much fresh on everyone's mind. That was why Neville Chamberlain let Hitler get away with as much as he did in the 1930s (That and that Britain couldn't afford another war either). That was why the US retreated into an isolationist/protectionist shell. America is an impregnable fortress - we have two entire oceans between us and any plausible invader - why should we send our boys to die in a European fight? Not sending them into fights that aren't ours is rather the popular meme these days as I understand it.

      I'm also curious how you conclude that the US only showed up after the Soviets had won the war. Seeing as the US declared war on all the Axis powers in early December of 1941, at which time Soviet forces were in full retreat, and the decisive turning point in the Eastern front - the Battle of Stalingrad - didn't even begin until late summer 1942.

      I also question how you conclude that Japan could barely challenge the US, when the Pacific Theater (which, if I might remind you, the US that contributed "very little to the defeat of the Axis" fought essentially its own while simultaneously fighting and/or arming two others in North Africa and Europe) began with the US Pacific Fleet getting sucker-punched and suffering defeat after defeat for over a year. Yes, for many reasons it's certainly true that for Imperial Japan to start a war with the US was a suicidal proposition in the long term, but you dishonor the memory of all the men who died fighting towards the home islands to say they were barely challenged.

      And the war was most certainly not practically won - The Imperial Japanese Army's own internal documents say they were ready to send every person in their entire nation to die fighting, and not until the US demonstrated unequivocally that we could now grant that suicidal wish and not lose a single man doing it did they surrender (unconditionally surrender - Japanese has about a dozen ways to yes and no without actually saying yes and no). Our own generals were forecasting literally millions of dead (to say nothing of casualties) if we finished the island hopping strategy and invaded the Home Islands conventionally.

      Was the Axis doomed much sooner by Hitler's strategic incompetence? I'll let Operation Barbarossa speak to that, along with several other potentially critical decision points that shouldn't have gone in Allied favor (like the decision not to release Panzers at Normandy because the Fuhrer was asleep and not to be disturbed). Was America's industrial and manpower committment to the war a footnote? Not on your life.

    48. Re:That is no prediction by tinkerton · · Score: 1

      The fact that Germany wanted to pick a direct fight with the US

      that's a contentious statement. I recall reading that the Germany hoped that the Tripartite Pact would deter the US from trying anything. There was no desire to pick a fight with the US. Once the US and Japan started fighting, Germany were in a dilemma whether to blow up the pact or have a state of war with the US.

    49. Re:That is no prediction by mrmeval · · Score: 1

      Slavery and involuntary servitude are still legal in the United States if it is punishment for a crime.

      I suppose driving while black counts as a crime in some places.

      --
      I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
    50. Re:That is no prediction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Score: +5, Funny

    51. Re:That is no prediction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you? WWII? You confuse that with the russians and WWII, I think.

    52. Re:That is no prediction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is secrecy really productive? Was the leak good or bad? Are the costly measures to make future leaks less likely a good investment?

      Generally speaking, to keep damage low, fail early and often. Small loss and fast recovery is better then illusion of high security. Secrecy is good if and while it works, but if you rely on it too much, you are doing something wrong and it will hurt you eventually. System should be managed to gracefully degrade when you strip it of certain important features that are taken for granted ... "honesty is best policy" and that sort of things ...
      All things considered, Wikileaks didn't make catastrophic impact at all, probably because most of the info has been already speculated true (which means it pre-leaked a long time ago).

    53. Re:That is no prediction by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 2

      The American Civil Was was about *more* than slavery, but it's ridiculous to say that it wasn't about slavery.

      And if it were the Federal Government could have ended slavery for a LOT less money and an ENORMOUSLY lower number of lost lives by just buying all the slaves and freeing them, as was suggested at the time by Peter Cooper.

      This would meet the constitutional requirements - or of a minor constitutional tweak was deemed necessary it would likely have succeeded if tried.

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    54. Re:That is no prediction by JockTroll · · Score: 0

      When looking back on history, it always seems cruel, because we are used to higher standards of living.

      Don't worry, they're working hard to put a remedy to that. Soon we won't think of those times as cruel, just standard stuff.

      --
      Geeks are so full of shit that "beating the crap out of them" takes a whole new meaning.
    55. Re:That is no prediction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Without warning"?

      It's not like the US wasn't looking for an excuse to go to war and left the base vulnerable to attack even though there were advance warnings... oh wait, it was.

    56. Re:That is no prediction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pulling out of Afghanistan means the country will probably be in chaos for a long time, which not only means lots of human rights violations, but also that it'll remain a breeding ground for Islamistic terrorism.

      That is not chaos. That is evil order, evil but stable. Someone more blunt would perhaps name it "natural state of affairs".

      So I think you have good reasons, both idealistic and practical, to stay in Afghanistan until order is restored (if it ever wiill).

      I am highly pessimistic about the outcome of that. I mean, it could be kept partially and temporarily done if you are willing to keep paying the price.

    57. Re:That is no prediction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if anyone had intervened, the same bunch of retarded faggots (i.e. you) would have been complaining about neorecolonialisation or similar shit.

    58. Re:That is no prediction by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I'm also curious how you conclude that the US only showed up after the Soviets had won the war. Seeing as the US declared war on all the Axis powers in early December of 1941, at which time Soviet forces were in full retreat, and the decisive turning point in the Eastern front - the Battle of Stalingrad - didn't even begin until late summer 1942.

      Right, it's not that we waited until the Soviets had won the war, it's that we waited until the Soviets got their asses kicked, because we knew that would pay us our dividends in the future. It did. We are not the kind of scum that the GP suggested, we are another kind of scum.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    59. Re:That is no prediction by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      With regards to "On the gripping hand", I think you are confusing Larry Niven with Asimov...

      No, I am not; it's just something I say all the time. I always thought the saying "two sides to every story" was stupid, and then along came The Gripping Hand and I had a saying to go with my belief. In a testament to the nerdliness of Slashdot, I have never been given grief about it before. Your comment is understandable, though.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    60. Re:That is no prediction by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Maybe military action was not the best way to resolve that situation.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    61. Re:That is no prediction by silentcoder · · Score: 2

      >We are enforcing Afghanistan's 1941 signing of the Declaration of Universal Right of Man.

      Negotiations on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights began in 1946, the year after the end of World War 2 and were concluded when the document was signed in 1948. The document you cite does not exist nor has any document by that name ever been signed, least of all by Afghanistan. Assuming you meant the UDHR the date is actually very important. The UDHR has it's origins DURING World War 2 when the Allies based their alliance on a reaffirming of their commitment to human rights, which led, in the aftermath of the war, to the drafting of a declaration on what those rights should be.

      >For those who say it isn't our business to protect the rights of others, that line of thinking was invalidated by WWII and previously in the Civil war.

      How has the US Civil War got anything to do with other countries. Of course your government has a duty to protect the rights of it's own CITIZENS. The end of slavery recognize black people as citizens with the rights there-off, a status previously denied them. This was not the right's of "others" but of your own damn neighbours who were less equal than other animals.
      As for World War 2, that was a spectacularly bad example as America refused to become overtly involved in that war until you were attacked on home soil. Your commitment to "human rights" was rather flimsy for the first years of the war when your only official involvement was war profiteering by selling weapons and tanks (the only apparent good thing you officially did in that time was to only sell them to ONE side - but that could just as easily be called 'not pissing off your best customer' - since Germany had much better capacity to manufacture their own, they weren't ever going to be a big buyer). The minor covert involvement of the USA prior to Pearl Harbour was basically a joke - again, meant for no other purpose than to ensure your customer (Britain) kept buying.

      It's rather silly to claim that America had a major national issue with the IDEALS of Nazism prior to Pearl Harbor since a hell of a lot of the same laws were on YOUR books (indeed they were cited as defence by many during the Nuremberg trials), you had more extensive eugenics laws than the Germans did, you just didn't have the final solution.
      In fact the last state to get rid of a eugenics based forced sterilization law in the USA didn't do so until 1974 !

      If Germany hadn't been so good at making their own guns that they actually needed yours - you would quite likely have fought on the opposite side in world war 2 - it would have suited your cultural and legal position at the time better than Britain's did.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    62. Re:That is no prediction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, afghanistan doens't have a culture. It has roughly 17, not counting the white foreign invaders (NATO) or the brown foreign invaders (AQ)

    63. Re:That is no prediction by metacell · · Score: 1

      That is not chaos. That is evil order, evil but stable. Someone more blunt would perhaps name it "natural state of affairs".

      You mean the talibans will just get back into power?

      That's quite possible. I was thinking of a situation where the USA leaves Afghanistan with a government which is fairly benign, but unable to stop all the terrorist recruiting and training going on under its nose. Much like the situation in Iraq.

    64. Re:That is no prediction by silentcoder · · Score: 0

      Actually you could argue that on average the slaves were slightly BETTER off. I certainly WOULD argue that those slaves were on average better off than a modern-day sweatshop worker.

      See a slave has value. You have to invest in a slave, to maximize the return on investment you need that slave to be productive for as long as possible. This means ensuring he has adequate food, shelter and basic needs (even rest) to remain healthy and working for as long as possible because replacing a slave is expensive.
      A sweatshop worker is cheap to get, and cheap to replace, so there is no reason to care if they are committing suicide, if they are working in extremely dangerous conditions and getting ill (not like they can quit - every other job is just as bad), no reason to treat them with dignity (make them pee in a bag at their work-stations). To maximize investment with sweatshop workers you only need to maximize SHORT TERM productivity of a worker- and replace him/her as soon as that goes down.

      I don't know the history of the US North well enough, but I imagine it was rather similar.

      Now don't get me wrong, I don't support slavery at all - I just don't support free labour that's WORSE than slavery EITHER.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    65. Re:That is no prediction by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      All wars are economic wars.

    66. Re:That is no prediction by rwise2112 · · Score: 1
      From Futurama:

      Fry: You know what the worst thing about being a slave is? They make you work all day but they don't pay you or let you go.
      Leela: That's the only thing about being a slave.

      --

      "For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert"
    67. Re:That is no prediction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rule #1: You can only marry a woman from the nearest adjacent village (sets up a dependency graph)

      Rule #2: If anyone kills a member of your extended family, you must seek revenge by killing one of those that did the killing. (sets up a reaction chain).

      Almost like a reaction-diffusion equation system.

    68. Re:That is no prediction by Pascal+Sartoretti · · Score: 1

      Instead of 50 states we could have ended up going down the path of creating 50 different countries and boy wouldn't that be fun.

      Maybe it would be less fun, but why would people be less happy or poorer in smaller countries ? I would argue the opposite (I come from Switzerland...), and some studies agree.

      Besides, the world as a whole would currently be better off with a smaller and less aggressive USA...

    69. Re:That is no prediction by bornagainpenguin · · Score: 2

      For all we know, somewhere in the future, people will pitty us because our foods contained to much salt.

      And MSG, corn syrup, propyl glycol, cellulose gum, ect...

      I think future generations will look back at our diets in horror and ponder the question of how much our (poor?) decision making was a direct result of the 'food' we ate.

      --
      Have a Virgin Mobile USA smartphone? Give VMRoms.com a try!
    70. Re:That is no prediction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We can't save everyone so we should save no one?

      We did something bad in the past therefore we should not do something good today?

    71. Re:That is no prediction by Jawnn · · Score: 1

      So what's our policy for deciding which people's rights get protected?

      Roll the dice, and if their country is important to our strategic economic interests we intervene, otherwise we don't?

      Now you're getting it. The policy is "If it's profitable for those who write the checks that get us elected, we go to war, and where we can, use the "bring democracy to oppressed people" schtick as a PR tool. Because everybody knows, you need some positive spin when the voters' kids start coming home dead, in large numbers.

    72. Re:That is no prediction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you're a nut-job. you don't know diddly-squat. who's rights were we protecting in the Civil War? african-americans? The Emancipation Proclamation was not issued until AFTER the Civil War began and IT ONLY FREED THE SLAVES IN THE CONFEDERATE STATES. It was a military strategy designed by the Union to defeat the South. The Civil War WAS about states' rights. Slavery was just one of those rights that the South wanted to hold on to.

      and how does WWII validate the thinking that 'it is our business to protect the rights of others'? bullsh!t! it's our business to protect our national sovereignty...which was threatened by Japan at Pearl Harbor...who were allied with a Germany that was conquering all of Europe. Together, Germany and Japan were seriously close to taking over the world. i don't see the same threat in Afghanistan.

      please take your weak propaganda Big Government BS and stuff it back in your hole.

    73. Re:That is no prediction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      see what happens when you compromise? :)

    74. Re:That is no prediction by Nimey · · Score: 2

      You're making the charmingly naive assumption that all the slaveowners would be willing to sell, and that it would be easy to ban further importation.

      Actually, no. That's kind of a retarded assumption.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    75. Re:That is no prediction by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Do you mean the part where the US came in after the Soviets had won the war in Europe and declared itself the winner?

      The USA entered WW2 SIX MONTHS after Germany invaded the USSR. Which was well before "the Soviets had won the war".

      All this ignoring the moderately enormous amount of material aid we gave the USSR (we shipped them more tanks than the Wermacht had, but, far more importantly, we shipped them ten trucks for every tank...)

      Ditto the UK. We supplied them a lot of equipment, essentially for free, before we entered the war as a co-belligerent.

      Or the part where the US took on an opponent that could barely challenge them... and used nuclear weapons in a war already practically won?

      You're obviously unaware that the Japanese Navy was the third largest in the world at the time (behind the US Navy and the Royal Navy), and an Army that was roughly ten times the size of the US Army.

      Note that as of the evening of 7DEC1941, the Imperial Japanese Navy was actually larger than the US Navy.

      Note also that the entire US Navy could not be brought to bear against Japan because ~1/3 of it was in the Atlantic violating International Law on Neutrality by assisting the Royal Navy against the Kriegsmarine.

      Americans contributed very little to the defeat of the Axis.

      Oddly enough, even Stalin wasn't dumb enough to say that.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    76. Re:That is no prediction by khallow · · Score: 1

      Don't worry, they're working hard to put a remedy to that. Soon we won't think of those times as cruel, just standard stuff.

      Seriously, we need to look at who is trying to roll back the clock to 1850. There's not enough labor in the US to support such an economy, unless we destroy the economy first. The Man isn't interested in that.

    77. Re:That is no prediction by shoemilk · · Score: 1

      That line of thinking was invalidated by WWII... how?

      Do you mean the part where the US came in after the Soviets had won the war in Europe and declared itself the winner?

      Or the part where the US took on an opponent that could barely challenge them... and used nuclear weapons in a war already practically won?

      Americans contributed very little to the defeat of the Axis. Most of the fall of the Axis can be attributed to the Nazi military leaders being just plain incompetent. And of course, the Soviet Union, to provide the iceberg for Nazi Germany to ram into.

      I weep for the US education system...

    78. Re:That is no prediction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I recall there being only 34 states during the Civil War. I wasn't there though, so I could be wrong. However, 34 different countries, plus probably a really big Mexico would make for a very different look to North America and probably the entire World today. Sounds like a premise to an interesting storyline.

    79. Re:That is no prediction by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 3, Informative

      I certainly WOULD argue that those slaves were on average better off than a modern-day sweatshop worker.

      See a slave has value. You have to invest in a slave, to maximize the return on investment you need that slave to be productive for as long as possible. This means ensuring he has adequate food, shelter and basic needs (even rest) to remain healthy and working for as long as possible because replacing a slave is expensive.

      I've read that same argument from slaveowners in the Confederacy.

      Alas, the evidence does not support your position.

      The mistake you make is the "because replacing a slave is expensive" - they're not. They reproduce just like free men do. And while a child isn't good for as much labor as an adult, they were certainly put to work as children...

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    80. Re:That is no prediction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For all we know, somewhere in the future, people will pitty us because of our uncured tendonitis and CTS.

      FTFY

    81. Re:That is no prediction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slavery and involuntary servitude are still legal in the most countries if it is punishment for a crime.

      FTFY

    82. Re:That is no prediction by silentcoder · · Score: 1, Troll

      >The mistake you make is the "because replacing a slave is expensive" - they're not. They reproduce just like free men do. And while a child isn't good for as much labor as an adult, they were certainly put to work as children...

      That's a good argument - and like I said, I was not in the least trying to excuse slavery - I find the very idea abominable. But I do believe that slavery at least in the first generation may actually create an economic incentive for the well treatment of workers that is absent in unskilled free labour jobs.

      This is not an excuse for slavery - but an assault on the working conditions we allow fellow human beings to be under, conditions which differ from slavery in name only.

      It's interesting though that the idea of born slaves and life-long slaves was a relatively modern one. The confederate slave-owners cited biblical slave-owning as justification but conveniently forgot all the rules about slave-ownership established in the bible. Slaves could only be owned for 7 years, after which they had to be released, at this point a slave could voluntarily CHOOSE to enter lifelong servitude but this could not be enforced, and in order to do so the slave would have to get his ear pierced by the local priest (in theory - that means an independent witness to his further slavery being by his own choice). The children of slaves were born as free men, who could of course BECOME slaves later on, but nobody was born that way.

      Now we can argue about how well the Israelites stuck to the rules, and whether those rules really would make it "okay" (I vote no), but it's just an interesting example of how those who use religion as an excuse for bad behaviour will always conveniently choose only the bits that suit them. "The bible said we can own slaves" but never "the bible also said we have to release them after 7 years". Or in it's modern form: "The bible says marriage is only between man and woman" but never "love thy neighbour like thyself".

      In the end it comes down to what Terry Pratchett masterly summed up: All sin starts with thinking of people as things.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    83. Re:That is no prediction by painandgreed · · Score: 3, Informative

      Working in crappy factories where injuries were common, to include losing digits, limbs, etc., yeah. Where if you quit, the only other jobs were just as bad. Sure, slaves had to deal with stuff like being whipped, raped, etc. but the living conditions of a slave were comparable to the Northern working class, and the hope of changing one's situation was equally as abysmal. Meanwhile, the crime and other crap the working class in the North dealt with (including beatings, rape, etc) were almost as bad.

      IIRC, Lincoln was questioned on the conditions between Northern factory workers and Southern slaves, his response was that none of the children of the factory workers were forced by law to be factory workers when they grew up.

    84. Re:That is no prediction by SJHillman · · Score: 1

      Just keep telling yourself that because what we learn in third grade must be the absolute truth, no matter how complex the issues were.

    85. Re:That is no prediction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Keywords *** OWED TO *** ---> Europe had to pay HEAVY LOANS to the US for the cost of the WAR ...

      WAR isnt cheap .... esp when you are the one waging it ...

    86. Re:That is no prediction by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      The American Civil Was was about *more* than slavery, but it's ridiculous to say that it wasn't about slavery.

      My U.S. History professor, who wrote a dissertation about the civil war, agrees but in a slightly different way. He said it was an economic war. It just so happened that the economics of the South were based on slave labor. So while Congressmen in both chambers of Congress from both sides of the Mason-Dixon line were debating economic strife, the underlying issue was that the South made their money on the backs of slaves, while the North made their money on the backs of poor lower-class workers who were exploited just as bad but were free to walk away from their jobs.

      Nothing was good about either side in those times, but the North was slightly less bad.

      And General Grant agreed in his memoirs on the causes of the Civil War, that it was economic in nature, but for different reasons. First, just ten years before Texas had won independence and a treaty favoring them with Mexico at the cost of the US. The war to do that was mostly paid for by the North. Second, the South, with most of its workers being forced to remain uneducated and unskilled labor by law, prevented them from ever becoming an economic power to rival the North whose workforce was becoming more educated and skilled as time went by. In the end, while he states that he had no doubt that soon after the Constitution was written, any state that wanted to could have left, however, after all this time, there was no way the South could profit from the United States and then take that profit and leave without approval of the same United States. Likewise, the United States could not continue to allow the South to drag them down by preventing their work force from becoming educated and skilled.

      Somehow, the situation, while not as extreme, seems like it hasn't changed much in current years.

    87. Re:That is no prediction by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      The American Civil Was was about *more* than slavery, but it's ridiculous to say that it wasn't about slavery.

      And if it were the Federal Government could have ended slavery for a LOT less money and an ENORMOUSLY lower number of lost lives by just buying all the slaves and freeing them, as was suggested at the time by Peter Cooper.

      This would meet the constitutional requirements - or of a minor constitutional tweak was deemed necessary it would likely have succeeded if tried.

      Nope, Lincoln did try it and was rejected well past the South beginning to lose the Civil War. At the siege of Richmond, when the South asked to discuss terms of surrender as a stalling tactic, Lincoln said if they got rid of slavery and rejoined the US as if nothing had happened, he would agree to whatever terms the South wanted, easily including things like paying compensation for the slaves and payment for other damage done during the war.

    88. Re:That is no prediction by idontgno · · Score: 1

      Well, historically, Afghanistan seems to have a semi-fixed number of indigenous tribal/linguistic cultures and a rotating cast of guest invaders. NATO and Taliban/AQ is just the latest in a long long list.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    89. Re:That is no prediction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you have a handy reference?

      Not at hand. That bit of trivia was in a meatspace book I read during a history binge late last year. I want to say it was Thomas Ayers' "That's Not In My American History Book," but I could be wrong.

    90. Re:That is no prediction by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      The north could have just let the southern states leave the union, but the north was not keen on having a resource rich, wealthy adversary nation right next to it that might align itself with Britian, France, and the native americans against the union. Of course there isn't just one reason for the US civil war, but this was the big deal.

      The war started when the south attacked Fort Sumter. Probably something else would have happened if that hadn't, but the north didn't just invade the south to prevent the seccession.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    91. Re:That is no prediction by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      The fact that Germany wanted to pick a direct fight with the US

      that's a contentious statement. I recall reading that the Germany hoped that the Tripartite Pact would deter the US from trying anything. There was no desire to pick a fight with the US. Once the US and Japan started fighting, Germany were in a dilemma whether to blow up the pact or have a state of war with the US.

      I suspect the German leaders were hoping Japan would play tit-for-tat and declare war on the USSR. Would have helped them a lot at that time.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    92. Re:That is no prediction by bjdevil66 · · Score: 2

      "Besides, the world as a whole would currently be better off with a smaller and less aggressive USA..."

      Sure... Right up until 1917, when the US entered WWI and helped turn the tide against the Kaiser.

      Right up until 1940, when Germany (again) had conquered most of Europe, and Great Britain was holding on by its fingernails (and supplies from the US that made it past the U-boats). Nevermind the millions more Jews who would've been slaughtered when the UK fell.

      Right after WWII, when all of Western Europe lay in ruins, and the pissed off Communists under Stalin were pushing their Iron Curtain west, when the Marshall Plan was kicked into effect by the US.

      Right up through the 1980's, when the US in the Cold War's arms race finally bankrupt the Communists, brought the wall down, and re-introduced (at least limited) freedom to the Warsaw Pact.

      Could a group of 48 separate states trying to peacefully co-exist (Alaska and Hawaii would've never been Americanized) have been able to do anything to stop any of those things from happening? No... And I'm sure that Alaska would be SO much better off, being part of Communist Russia. (The US would've never bought Alaska in 1867 if the country had fractured as a result of the Civil War...) And so on, and so on...

      I'm not saying that the US is always the good guy or that its motives have always been for the world's common good. I'm pretty sure, however, that the world is much better off today with the United States being a strong democratic, capitalist republic that has so far been living proof that you don't need a king, dictator, or otherwise oppressive government to get things done. The US has so far generally push the world in the right direction, and nobody that has studied world history and economics can honestly argue against that.

    93. Re:That is no prediction by bjdevil66 · · Score: 0

      And my favorite - Bisphenol A (BPA). It'll probably be another generation before we can finally get that potentially toxic crap out of our food and drink containers.

    94. Re:That is no prediction by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      There is a good argument to be made that WWII was caused by the entry of the US into WWI. Without the US in WWI, that war would have ended in a stalemate. No disastrous punishment of Germany, no cause for the development of Nazism, etc..

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    95. Re:That is no prediction by morgauxo · · Score: 1

      I'd love to believe that. I don't think I have ever heard a Congress or a Commander in Chief stand up and actually state something like that and then send people to war. I'm pretty sure that's because in the real world, it doesn't happen. We go to war to protect somebody's interests (usually business interests). If we do manage to help somebody obtain freedom along the way it's a nice bonus as well as a justification after the blood has started flowing. It's a rare bonus to. Much more likely, we give them the democracy they need to hold one election, elect Sharia law and it all starts over again. That is, if the tribal leaders or Taliban don't just take the place as we leave.

    96. Re:That is no prediction by morgauxo · · Score: 1

      It works great in the Middle East!!

    97. Re:That is no prediction by morgauxo · · Score: 1

      i don't think you have to suggest we NEVER get involved just to state that the current involvements are BS

    98. Re:That is no prediction by morgauxo · · Score: 1

      Your honor, I didn't steal the wallet, he left it out in plain sight on the table! It was begging to be taken!

    99. Re:That is no prediction by slew · · Score: 0

      The war started when the south attacked Fort Sumter. Probably something else would have happened if that hadn't, but the north didn't just invade the south to prevent the seccession.

      Fort Sumter was located in South Carolina territory. After South Carolina attempted to seccede, a couple US/union companies instead of retreating, essentially attempted to occupy the 1/2 completed Fort Sumter (which is on an island in charleston harbor in a critical location). The fighting broke out when after a couple of months of nothing happening, the Union army attempted to resupply the fort in South Carolina territory to attempt to keep the fort from the confederate hands.

      Certainly something else might have happened to start the war (it seemed inveitable), but you make it sound like the north didn't invade the south to start the war. I'm not sure that statement jives with reality...

    100. Re:That is no prediction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      US had started the war much earlier by blockading the Japanese and preventing them from importing oil that they needed. They had a choice to either starve, or attack the US navy in a desperate attempt to force a resolution. Not much of a choice.

    101. Re:That is no prediction by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

      You're making the charmingly naive assumption that all the slaveowners would be willing to sell, and that it would be easy to ban further importation.

      What made you think I was talking about voluntary sales? That would drive the (already very high) price through the roof. We're talking "eminent domain" here. Payment is about satisfying the "takings" clause of the 5th amendment. (Ending their status as property would be a taking.)

      Importation had already been banned.

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    102. Re:That is no prediction by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

      Lincoln did try [buying out all the existing slaves] and was rejected well past the South beginning to lose the Civil War.

      I would be interested in any references you have for that. Not that I doubt you, but for my own follow up and to inject the references into debate on a non-slashdot forum. This issue is still discussed in libertarian circles and I have not heard anyone assert that Lincoln actually tried this before the war started.

      As for the siege of Richmond discussions (for which a reference to the offer would also be handy), you may be conflating two issues: Ending slavery and ending secession. The southern states had a lot of other gripes about impositions from/via the Federal government and the richer northern states. (Still do, in fact. It's just that pretty much ALL the states are getting the shaft in one form or another these days.)

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    103. Re:That is no prediction by Nimey · · Score: 2

      How are you going to /enforce/ eminent domain without it leading to a shooting war? You already had the foamy people howling about secession over ending slavery. You're making a bunch of assumptions, basically Monday-morning quarterbacking Lincoln and the Union.

      Naive, and a typical Internet Libertarian way of assuming that people are /rational/ and intelligent. People, in the main, are not.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    104. Re:That is no prediction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Makes me grateful that the worst I deal with is my tendonitis and the risk of CTS."

      Gee, that Corvallis Transit System in Oregon must be a lot more dangerous than I thought.

      http://www.ci.corvallis.or.us/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=467&Itemid=410

    105. Re:That is no prediction by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      And my favorite - Bisphenol A (BPA). It'll probably be another generation before we can finally get that potentially toxic crap out of our food and drink containers.

      Well, I don't generally buy stuff that comes in plastic containers, and when I do, it's BPA-free. Yes, that means I generally don't buy food in cans. And nothing of value was lost. I do sometimes buy food that comes in plastic bags, but often that is dry food (less transfer) and usually it is frozen food (less leaching.) Meanwhile, all the plastic vessels we have here are BPA-free, I've got a couple of BPA-free Nalgene bottles and so on.

      However, I don't feel smug because most BPA-free plastics have some other Bisphenol in it, and they are used for the same reasons as BPA, which means they're similar to BPA. As far as I know no one has yet proven that they are as harmful as BPA, but there is reason to believe that they are.

      I think we're going to look back on the use of plastic food containers as a big mistake in general. We should be using glass, and rather than recycling it, we should just use non-toxic forms of glass, and then dump them in the ocean when we're done. Everybody likes beach glass, right?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    106. Re:That is no prediction by Pascal+Sartoretti · · Score: 1

      You missed the part where I said "currently".

      I fully agree with you for the 20th century, but the USA in the 21st century has been more a source of problems than of solutions.

  3. Macro versus Micro by girlintraining · · Score: 3, Informative

    Predicting what a group of people will do is fairly easy; Determining what a particular member of that group will do is very hard. So it can't predict who will attack; It might be able to tell you where though, and possibly when.

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    1. Re:Macro versus Micro by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or, more likely, assign probabilities for where and when.

    2. Re:Macro versus Micro by Narrowband · · Score: 2

      That was the point of "psychohistory." The idea was you can't predict the individuals, just the mass/net effect over time.

    3. Re:Macro versus Micro by alen · · Score: 0

      based on past history the germans should have gone to war with the french, the british or both by now. it's been almost 70 years since the last of their wars. a record over the last 1000 years

    4. Re:Macro versus Micro by Teresita · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The concept was fascinating and original, but flawed. Asimov based psychohistory on thermodynamics, not chaos theory. Greg Bear tossed around a lot of technobabble in "Foundation and Chaos" but his understanding of the underlying theory was as simplistic as George Lucas and his "good force/dark force" dualism. If Asimov hadn't have contracted HIV from that blood transfusion, he would have had Seldon (in yet another prequel) speak of the Second Empire as a strange attractor, without focusing on the details that led up to it.

    5. Re:Macro versus Micro by Greyfox · · Score: 2

      I expect them to "foreclose" on Greece any minute now. Maybe they're waiting until they can get a Greece/Spain/Italy/Portugal package deal...

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    6. Re:Macro versus Micro by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps the World Cup is serving as some sort of proxy.

    7. Re:Macro versus Micro by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Predicting what a group of people will do is fairly easy

      Yeah, cause we've been sooo great at predicting election outcomes.

    8. Re:Macro versus Micro by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

      I'd argue against that. Each conflict between the German peoples and France, even before Unification was more destructive than the last. Just look at the Napoleonic Wars to the Franco-Prussian War to the First World War to the Second World War. Each conflict more destructive than the last. Even as far back as the Congress of Vienna, there. Was recognition that the only long lasting solution was greater economic interdependence between France and Germany. What has happened since WWII is exactly that; a close economic union with strong political overtones. In fact, I'd say the Euro currency crisis, one way or another, is ultimately going to lead to a permanent Franco-German political union.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    9. Re:Macro versus Micro by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 1

      The Reverend Dr. Thomas Bayes tells us that we can't do worse than chance if we have data, and sometimes we can do better.

    10. Re:Macro versus Micro by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The concept was fascinating and original, but flawed. Asimov based psychohistory on thermodynamics, not chaos theory.

      Asimov was a chemist, after all.

    11. Re:Macro versus Micro by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      Or, more likely, assign probabilities for where and when.

      That was the point of "psychohistory." The idea was you can't predict the individuals, just the mass/net effect over time.

      Of course, if all you can predict is probabilities you quickly diverge from reality.

      The analogy between this and psychohistory is ridiculous.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    12. Re:Macro versus Micro by HornWumpus · · Score: 4, Funny

      A permanent Franco-German political union called,,,wait for it,,,Germany.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    13. Re:Macro versus Micro by Black+Parrot · · Score: 2

      I expect them to "foreclose" on Greece any minute now. Maybe they're waiting until they can get a Greece/Spain/Italy/Portugal package deal...

      I read some analysis that said the whole Euro crisis is because they accepted countries that had a long track record of not following the rules that the Union required, and that the reason for the "accept everybody" mentality was that the whole thing was driven by the post-Berlin-Wall German leaders to show everyone that they were going to be an integrated part of Europe and not start any more debilitating wars.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    14. Re:Macro versus Micro by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      based on past history the germans should have gone to war with the french, the british or both by now. it's been almost 70 years since the last of their wars. a record over the last 1000 years

      Of course, "Germany" hasn't existed but about a century and a half.

      An interesting thing, some Allied general looked at the terms of the Treaty of Versailles in 1919 and remarked, "That's not a treaty, that's terms for a 20-year cease fire."

      If Germans ever develop a revanchist attitude toward the territory they've now lost in *two* world wars, there will be trouble. But the risk is probably far lower, since the partition allowed time for a couple of generations to die off. The fuel for what happened in the '30s was a generation of unemployed veterans who felt screwed by the terms of the "armistice".

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    15. Re:Macro versus Micro by chrismcb · · Score: 1

      That is just statistics. Half the time you flip a coin it will come up heads. Last toss was tails... You still have no idea what the next toss will be.

    16. Re:Macro versus Micro by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The concept was fascinating and original, but flawed. Asimov based psychohistory on thermodynamics, not chaos theory. Greg Bear tossed around a lot of technobabble in "Foundation and Chaos" but his understanding of the underlying theory was as simplistic as George Lucas and his "good force/dark force" dualism. If Asimov hadn't have contracted HIV from that blood transfusion, he would have had Seldon (in yet another prequel) speak of the Second Empire as a strange attractor, without focusing on the details that led up to it.

      Intuitive IQ fail.

      http://www.tim-thompson.com/entropy2.html

      Entropy and chaos are synonymous. The second law of classic thermodynamics "The second law concerns a quantity called entropy, that expresses limitations, arising from what is known as irreversibility, on the amount of thermodynamic work that can be delivered to an external system by a thermodynamic process." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_thermodynamics

      Otherwise, yes, Asimov would have corrected his model like any diligent scientist. Just the other day I was reading about Psychohistory failing due to chaos theory and I was like 0_o

    17. Re:Macro versus Micro by metacell · · Score: 2

      Huh? Entropy may be synonymous to "disorder", but "chaos" is a completely different thing. Chaotic systems are characterised by the fact that arbitrarily small differences in initial conditions will eventually propagate into large differences. That's not something you find in the typical high-entropy system (like a bucket of air at room temperature and pressure).

    18. Re:Macro versus Micro by metacell · · Score: 2

      The EU is often pushed as a "peace project", but I'm not sure if anyone actually believes in it or it's just propaganda.

    19. Re:Macro versus Micro by metacell · · Score: 1

      lol

    20. Re:Macro versus Micro by Jade_Wayfarer · · Score: 1

      Why, here in Russia you can predict it with 146% accuracy!

      --
      Absence of proof != proof of absence.
    21. Re:Macro versus Micro by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By countries that don't follow the rules you mean Germany and France right? Seeing that they were the first to violate the deficit rules back in 2005, effectively bringing the stability pact to its knees (we can't have Germany or France receive punishment for violating anything, can we?).

    22. Re:Macro versus Micro by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Sure it is. The movement of any air molecule is chaotic. You can't predict it for very long. Only the statistical distribution is predictable.

      From the description of psychohistory in the book, the description of the second empire as a strange attractor is not particularly good since the path the galaxy took towards it, as well as the endpoint, was accurately predictable.

    23. Re:Macro versus Micro by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A permanent Franco-German political union called,,,wait for it,,,Switzerland.

      FTFY

    24. Re:Macro versus Micro by Dragonslicer · · Score: 2

      Of course, if all you can predict is probabilities you quickly diverge from reality.

      Hence the Second Foundation.

    25. Re:Macro versus Micro by excelsior_gr · · Score: 1

      he would have had Seldon (in yet another prequel) speak of the Second Empire as a strange attractor

      For the record, a prequel to the story as it stands would have to be before the "Prelude to Foundation". At that time, Seldon didn't even know that the First Empire was dying, so the Second Empire cannot even get mentioned.

    26. Re:Macro versus Micro by metacell · · Score: 1

      It's not high entropy which causes the individual air molecules to move chaotically. They move just as chaotically in a gas at 1 Kelvin, only slower.

      On a macroscopic level, the air molecules' movements will even out, and the air will exert a constant and uniform pressure on the walls of its container, so on a macroscopic level, the system is not chaotic. This is in contrast to, for example, weather, where the chaotic movements of individual air molecules will propagate up to the macroscopoic level and cause vastly different weather.

      In fact, you can make the bucket of air behave more chaoticically by reducing the entropy. If you introduce cooler air into the container, the cooler air will mix with the warmer and create air currents -- i.e, molecular movements which do not even out statistically, and behave chaotically also on the macroscopic level.

    27. Re:Macro versus Micro by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      You said:

      arbitrarily small differences in initial conditions will eventually propagate into large differences. That's not something you find in the typical high-entropy system (like a bucket of air at room temperature and pressure).

      It is indeed something you find in typical high-entropy systems, including your own example. You also find it in the same bucket of air at lower temperatures, although if you lower the temperature enough and freeze out the gasses you will not find it.

      Yes, depending on the level you look at you may or may not find chaotic behaviour. That doesn't mean the system isn't chaotic. Weather is unpredictable at the molecular level, is moderately predictable at the system level over a few days, and is quite predictable over longer terms (when it's called climate). Certain dynamic climate systems are also generally predictable over longer terms, like the el nino/nina, monsoon, etc.

      The OP specifically mentioned strange attractors, which are involved in chaotic systems that exhibit chaotic features but settle towards a predictable state or set of states (the attractor), just like the bucket of air. Psychohistory was specifically described this way: individuals were completely unpredictable, the precise timeline was moderately predictable, and the outcome was almost inevitable.

    28. Re:Macro versus Micro by metacell · · Score: 1

      It is indeed something you find in typical high-entropy systems, including your own example. You also find it in the same bucket of air at lower temperatures, although if you lower the temperature enough and freeze out the gasses you will not find it.

      You can say that the system is chaotic at small scales. But it's imortant to note that you don't need chaos theory to understand the system at large scales. Since the small differences tend to even out, you only need statistical mechanics.

      If psychohistory works the same way (the small differences even out, so the system is predictable at galactic scales), then you don't need chaos theory to understand history at galactic scales. You can predict it using only classical models that don't take chaos into account. You don't need to model the chaotic behaviour of the smaller scales at all, since they can be treated as an average.

      What chaos theory has made us realise, is that most complex systems *don't* behave this way. Instead, the unpredictability on smaller scales tend to propagate to the larger scales.

      From Wikipedia:

      Chaos theory studies the behavior of dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions, an effect which is popularly referred to as the butterfly effect. Small differences in initial conditions (such as those due to rounding errors in numerical computation) yield widely diverging outcomes for chaotic systems, rendering long-term prediction impossible in general.

      Weather is unpredictable at the molecular level, is moderately predictable at the system level over a few days, and is quite predictable over longer terms (when it's called climate).

      There's a fundamental difference between predicting the weather and predicting climate change. The weather varies unpredictably around an average, and the only thing we can predict over longer periods is that average (because it stays the same). Climate change doesn't occur until one of the underlying factors change, such as atmospheric composition, or the Earth's distance to the sun. Climate change is *not* the accumulated result of varying weather. If we extrapolated a weather forecest into the far future, we'd just get nonsense. Weather and climate need to be treated as two different systems that obey different laws.

      If psychohistory worked in a similar way, it'd mean that in smaller timeframes, historical events would vary unpredictably, but in larger timeframes, the effects would average out so the system as a whole stayed the same. Change would need to come from external factors, such as new and unexpected technological inventions, or discovery of previously unknown habitable regions.

      I'm not saying it's impossible to build a model of history based on chaos theory, and even make predictions from it or use it to manipulate history, but I don't think Asimov (or his successors) has explained it very well. Nor do I expect him to; the first Foundation stories were written long before we knew anything about chaos theory-

    29. Re:Macro versus Micro by metacell · · Score: 1

      The OP specifically mentioned strange attractors, which are involved in chaotic systems that exhibit chaotic features but settle towards a predictable state or set of states (the attractor), just like the bucket of air. Psychohistory was specifically described this way: individuals were completely unpredictable, the precise timeline was moderately predictable, and the outcome was almost inevitable.

      It's conceivable there are attractor states for history, and if you find such an attractor ahead of time, you can predict history. But that means there will be no long-term historical change from that point onward; history will just orbit (unpredictably) through the limited set of states within the attractor. That's the only reason it becomes long-term predictable.

  4. Not a very good prediction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Let's see, combine sparsely populated mountainous terrain with few population centers and limited travel routes between them, right next to a country instigating most of the violence.

    Ain't hard to predict where future violence will happen.

  5. It can't be reality now that you published it. by Aristos+Mazer · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The first rule of Asimov's psychohistory is that you cannot tell the people you're monitoring that psychohistory exists. So publishing this has now invalidated the possiblity, showing yet another example of a headline that is a question to which the answer is, "no."

    1. Re:It can't be reality now that you published it. by arthurpaliden · · Score: 3, Funny

      No that was "Fight Club".

    2. Re:It can't be reality now that you published it. by Isaac+Remuant · · Score: 3, Informative

      To be fair, the citizens of Foundation knew about psycho-history and that they were destined to succeed (Hari Seldon's messages emphasized this aspect in every crisis message). The thing that needed to be kept from them was how the science actually worked so updated predictions wouldn't modify the large plan. In the meantime, the second foundation would be secretly checking that there were no deviations.

      As the data we can store about are lives, systems and connections grows in volume and richness, these kind of statistical analysis can prove quite useful.

      --
      "Science can amuse and fascinate us all, but it is engineering that changes the world. " - Asimov.
    3. Re:It can't be reality now that you published it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Forget foreign countries. Right here at home we have flash mobs that roam around in gangs and burglarize legitimate businesses. Lets see them stop that! More recently a gang of 40 of them ransacked a Wal - Mart. Let psychohistory work on that without extreme birth control measures and cutting off welfare.

  6. What's the stat here? by cultiv8 · · Score: 1

    Kinda interesting application of statistics for the social science (if there is such a thing) to the intertubes. If I was to guess, probably some type of hierarchical linear modeling with dates and locations as factors. Easy schmeezy, but interesting none-the-less.

    And by "simple code to extract dates and locations", I'm sure they meant regex.

    --
    sysadmins and parents of newborns get the same amount of sleep.
    1. Re:What's the stat here? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      You have the public stats of groups and regions supported by Pakistan, India, Iran, Saudi Arabia, links to MI6/SAS/CIA and warlords, US protected drug growers/exporters.
      Thats the public face of the region.
      Then you have that strange http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kunduz_airlift event that shows the world the reality of what the US is really doing.
      What can the US do now? Follow a MI6 vision of small drug growing areas dependant on outside help but stable enough to hold local "elections"?
      The Soviet idea of holding a country for a few generations of education so that by default everybody is born into a new system?
      The CIA backed strong leader?
      To counter this you have Ireland, Algeria, parts of South America, South Africa - holding a country is hard work.
      The US seems to have made up some Boar War/census approach - work out what district/city/town/village/street/home is going to be difficult and night raid them until they are less difficult.... i.e. newspeak targeting is a cute "psychohistory' and "night raid" is a local death squad. More drones are great too.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  7. Re:Other uses? by similar_name · · Score: 2

    Given the history of conflict those seem like some of the easier predictions to make. Alas Psychohistory does not give specifics and only works in secrecy. Like time travel acting on knowledge of the future can alter the future.

  8. It's only temporary by Narrowband · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Even in Asimov's world, psychohistory only works on groups that don't practice psychohistory themselves. Harry Seldon only kept things from going off the rails by making the science die out, and by starting a Second Foundation of telepaths.

    Once someone starts making predictions from data aggregation more effective, the race will be on to duplicate or improve on it, and then nobody's prediction algorithms will work.

    Almost sounds like someone should write a dystopian Foundation book, where the mathematicians race to predict each others' predictive abilities (and of course, stop them!)

    1. Re:It's only temporary by HornWumpus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sounds like algorithmic trading.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    2. Re:It's only temporary by Robotbeat · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Sounds like algorithmic trading.

      That's EXACTLY, EXACTLY what I was thinking. We've solved a lot of the secrets of the atom (and seemed to decide mostly as a society that we don't want to harness that power), the two great superpowers have essentially made peace (superpower defined as a great power that can project regional-great-power-level globally... something that China will not be capable of for decades, hemmed in as they are on all sides by powerful rivals), money for "big science" has started to dry up (partly because of "starve the beast" politics starving the US of greatness, partly by the fact the Cold War is over), and we've just found the Higgs, basically confirming the Standard Model. So, what do we do? Well, theoretical physicists turn out to be really good at modeling arcane, abstract things. They've been moving en masse (remember, they're still a tiny group compared to all the MBAs out there) into quantitative finance. A lot of technology that once went to building faster and faster supercomputers (such as interconnect technology similar to Infiniband) is now being used to reduce latencies for financial transactions, where nanoseconds matter.

      And while I've often felt pretty skeptical (as a graduate student physicist myself) about the purpose of string theory, a theoretical physicist-turned quant said, "It turns out that string theory is useful in valuing mortgage backed securities."

      Somewhat unlike physical laws, the nature of financial systems changes constantly, so you have to redo your models (not just the constants in your models, but the models themselves) quite often, meaning endless job security for these physicist quants. And we're talking about the world's economy, meaning the potential profits aren't marginal, like they might be for designing a slightly more efficient laser or semiconductor, but is literally all the liquid or semiliquid assets in the world. After the end of the Cold War, physicists have found a way to be indispensable again.

      It's an arms race of quantitative finance going on out there. Personally, I think it's unsustainable and will eventually result in an enormous clampdown as we have more flash-crashes or something unforeseen, but even then, there will still be a market for quantitive finance as long as there is money.

    3. Re:It's only temporary by Isaac+Remuant · · Score: 1

      Exactly.

      I had an interesting chat about how economy is taught and this popped out. Having a science where the mere prediction of an outcome might influence that outcome makes it absolutely interesting and quite chaotic.

      --
      "Science can amuse and fascinate us all, but it is engineering that changes the world. " - Asimov.
    4. Re:It's only temporary by HornWumpus · · Score: 2

      I think it will eventually kill non algorithmic speculation. Then they will only have each other to feed on.

      It's much harder to model investments. Long term it's more about having the information or not. losing 1/4 penny per trade isn't a huge deal if you stay in positions for months at least.

      Speculation is a basic market distorting problem.

      On your post: I've worked with a bunch of underemployed physicists on utility system models. It must have sucked reporting to an engineer who wasn't even a PhD. I called them 'doctor' a lot to cut the sting.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    5. Re:It's only temporary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Once someone starts making predictions from data aggregation more effective, the race will be on to duplicate or improve on it, and then nobody's prediction algorithms will work.

      Welcome to the stock markets for the past 20 odd years (but more specifically, the last 8 or so).

    6. Re:It's only temporary by khallow · · Score: 1

      It's much harder to model investments. Long term it's more about having the information or not. losing 1/4 penny per trade isn't a huge deal if you stay in positions for months at least.

      Speculation is a basic market distorting problem.

      No, speculation attempts to solve the basic market distortion problem, namely, that your market participants' expectations and valuations will always differ from reality. I don't see speculation as the short term games that one can play to wring a little more money from other participants, but simply attempting to profit from how the markets will behave in the future and how things will be valued at points in the future.

      I find that most complaints about the "distortion" from speculation are really complaints about why reality differs from what it should be.

    7. Re:It's only temporary by artor3 · · Score: 2

      Asimov also wrote a short story, "Alexander the God", which predicted algorithmic trading and its downfalls. It's not a particularly good story, in truth, and was only published posthumously, but it was rather insightful in its prediction. In it, a man develops a computer algorithm to predict shifts in the stock market, and uses it to become fabulously wealthy. However, it all comes crashing down, when the one thing his algorithmic trading cannot account for is algorithmic trading.

    8. Re:It's only temporary by metacell · · Score: 1

      Once someone starts making predictions from data aggregation more effective, the race will be on to duplicate or improve on it, and then nobody's prediction algorithms will work.

      It'll work on badly organised people, such as riots, because they won't check if their behaviour can be predicted by psychohistory before acting.

    9. Re:It's only temporary by metacell · · Score: 1

      But surely there are cases when the market acts irrationally and speculation leads to grossly over-inflated prices (which eventually collapse)?

    10. Re:It's only temporary by thomst · · Score: 1

      Narrowband proposed:

      Almost sounds like someone should write a dystopian Foundation book, where the mathematicians race to predict each others' predictive abilities (and of course, stop them!)

      It's been done by Donald Kingsbury

      Good read, too.

      --
      Check out my novel.
    11. Re:It's only temporary by khallow · · Score: 1

      Those cases are self-correcting. The traders who trade in such cases lose money. As you note, it eventually collapses.

    12. Re:It's only temporary by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      The market can stay irrational longer then you can stay liquid. Perhaps the algorithmic traders can stay liquid long enough to punish the irrational speculators?

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    13. Re:It's only temporary by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      What you're talking about is arbitrage. Gravy money which is mostly sucked up by the brokerages.

      Speculation is something else, think day trading, velocity trading etc etc. In general any 'cures' for speculation would be worse then the speculation is. That said: if you can get ahead of that stampeding herd, more power to you, don't get trampled.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    14. Re:It's only temporary by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      It's worth noting that even in Asimov's Foundation "trilogy", psychohistory is trumped by the Great Man Theory.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    15. Re:It's only temporary by khallow · · Score: 1

      The market can stay irrational longer then you can stay liquid.

      You can win that game in other ways. The above saying is a warning about betting the farm on the timing of the collapse of irrationality in vast markets, especially in an attempt to force a market to behave a certain way. You can still make such bets and profit from them without going bankrupt.

      Perhaps the algorithmic traders can stay liquid long enough to punish the irrational speculators?

      IMHO, speculators who are irrational in one way are often irrational in other exploitable ways. For example, it's not uncommon for such speculators to go in and out frequently on risky positions. Algorithmic traders or other market makers can exploit this volatility.

    16. Re:It's only temporary by metacell · · Score: 1

      Yes, eventually, but they do a lot of damage before then. For example, it causes real capital and labour to be wasted on projects which won't yield any returns.

      Irrational speculation causes some stocks to be overpriced. Isn't that a form of market distortion?

  9. Mull by jfdavis668 · · Score: 1

    Wait until the Mull shows up and screws everything up.

    1. Re:Mull by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      With his secret weapon, hot cider.

      Oh, wait, you mean the Mule?

    2. Re:Mull by Teresita · · Score: 2

      mv /home/* /dev/mule

    3. Re:Mull by lennier · · Score: 1

      With his secret weapon, hot cider.

      No, he's from Kintyre.

      (oh mist rolling in from the sea)

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
  10. Hey Daneel by Uncle+Wiggin · · Score: 1

    You reading this ?

    1. Re:Hey Daneel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like he'd tell YOU, Speaker.

    2. Re:Hey Daneel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, but Betteridge is.

  11. Predictable without algorithms or data dumps by k(wi)r(kipedia) · · Score: 1

    You don't need complex algorithms to predict that. War inevitably produces abuses, especially where you have a recalcitrant enemy that refuses to be bombed into submission (e.g. guerilla warfare and terrorist attacks). That soldiers would go crazy in the battlefied, that some crazies would actually join the military, is a given. The genius would be in predicting the precise date when such "incidents" would occur or the gory details (e.g. instead of urinating on the bodies, the soldiers could have done something worse).

  12. Not a prediction by Hentes · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This is model building, not prediction. They tried to find a model that can calculate the events of 2010 based on data from 2009. This may sound like prediction, but the important thing is that the researchers started this after the events the model "predicted" happened. Thus, they were able to tweak their models to fit reality. This is not a bad thing, that's how you create working models, but a prediction is a statement about things in the future. They only made predictions now that they have published their results, and whether they are right or not remains to be seen.

    1. Re:Not a prediction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, actually it is a bad thing. It is not how you create working models. That's how you create models that seem to work over a limited data set and fail miserably in the end. You can build a model that calculates events in 2010 based on data from 2009 for almost anything you choose. Relationship between horse races and stock prices, rainfall in Bolivia and ice cream sales in Boston, you name it. If you "tune" the model enough you may get startlingly accurate results. They won't be worth a crap in 2011 however. If you use slightly less ridiculous associations, the odds are you will get some sort of correlation in 2011, but you might get none in 2012.

        Until you actually model the underlying system you are just making crap up.

      Besides, it's been a while since I read any Foundation books, but wasn't it eventually revealed that Psychohistory was a smokescreen and the Foundation had been manipulating things to fit their predictions all along?

    2. Re:Not a prediction by Teresita · · Score: 2

      The original Trilogy ended with the Second Foundation firmly in the ascendant, and the Plan intact, but the Encyclopedia a sham. Then in 1982 Asimov threw a monkey wrench in the works when Golan Trevise chose for "Gaia" and Psychohistory was deprecated in favor of Galaxia and it was the Seldon Plan that was a sham. Then David Brin, in "Foundation's Triumph" had the final word, when he asked Daneel if Galaxia would have need for an Encyclopedia Galactica. Daneel answered in the negative, and so Hari Seldon made him a friendly wager, that would not be settled until long after he died, that the Second Empire would still have an Encyclopedia Galactica, signifying that human will won through after all. And of course, every blurb from the Encyclopedia throughout the series has been from the edition published in 1054 of the Foundation Era, half a century after the Second Galactic Empire.

    3. Re:Not a prediction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And to reduce the models' complexity they engineered a virus to make humans responses more predictable...of course we use Fox News instead

    4. Re:Not a prediction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you read Asimov' Fundation?

  13. The full paper ... by bwoneill · · Score: 5, Informative

    for those who are interested. I'm looking forward to reading it this weekend.

    http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/07/11/1203177109

    1. Re:The full paper ... by siddesu · · Score: 1

      Thanks.

    2. Re:The full paper ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      for those who are interested. I'm looking forward to reading it this weekend.

      http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/07/11/1203177109

      And in the interest of academic freedom for those without access to PNAS, the full text: Point process modelling of the Afghan War Diary.

      Analyses appreciated.

  14. Psychohistory by br00tus · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Most modern Americans are unaware of the worldwide ideological debates of the early 20th century, and thus they miss the boat on what psychohistory obviously is. From a variety of things, including knowing Asimov's involvement with the Futurians in the 1930s, it's obvious that psychohistory is a parody of the Marxist conception of historical materialism. In fact, to anyone familiar with Marxian historical materialism, it is incredibly easy to see that this is what is made reference to by psychohistory in the book - although in the book the technique has been further developed. I've always felt the Mule was a reference to charismatic leaders like Hitler and Mussolini - ugly at close view, but with the ability to persuade large masses of people nonetheless, something which Marx did not foresee. That's just my interpretation though, it's not completely clear. I think that Hari Seldon is a Karl Marx figure is even more of a sure bet than the Mule possibility. To people who don't know the ideas of the Futurians, or the ideological ideas within the milieu of left-wing Jewish intellectual circles in New York City in the 1930s, I think it is easy to miss a lot of the references being made.

    1. Re:Psychohistory by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Considering Asimov's political leanings, I doubt it was meant as some sort of parody.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:Psychohistory by Isaac+Remuant · · Score: 1

      Thanks. Very interesting.

      --
      "Science can amuse and fascinate us all, but it is engineering that changes the world. " - Asimov.
    3. Re:Psychohistory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What's more,I strongly suspect the findings in this analysis are a 'no shit!' type finding. on a broader scale, i would guess:

      * they predict ebbs in the winter
      * they predict surges in the summer, after poppy planting
      * they predict surges again in the fall, after poppy harvest
      * additional ebbs and flows are based on religious and cultural happenings
      * anything not fitting the model is small enough to fit an outlier

      With anything relatively binary and predictable, like social custom, it's fairly easy to model predictable results.

      I go to work 5 days a week and take two off. every once in a while i'll work a weekend, and sometimes i'm sick. even the same, you can predict with over 90% certainty when and when i will not be working (and where it will be happening). the same goes for things like grocery shopping, knowing only a little information like when i get paid and where I live (with high certainty).

    4. Re:Psychohistory by JWW · · Score: 1

      Very interesting idea. This would definitely explain why, upon reading the trilogy, I found psychohistory so distasteful.

      I felt the Foundation trilogy was nowhere near as good as people made it out to be. The Dune books far far outpaced it in creating a complex galactic human empire.

    5. Re:Psychohistory by Isaac+Remuant · · Score: 1

      Distateful in what sense? I'm sorry, but all I'm reading from your complaint is that "association with marxism = Bad".

      And it doesn't have to be a contest. Dune books are great and COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.

      --
      "Science can amuse and fascinate us all, but it is engineering that changes the world. " - Asimov.
    6. Re:Psychohistory by khallow · · Score: 2

      To people who don't know the ideas of the Futurians, or the ideological ideas within the milieu of left-wing Jewish intellectual circles in New York City in the 1930s, I think it is easy to miss a lot of the references being made.

      In the defense of the ignorant masses, one can say the same of just about any literary work ever made. It's generally thought that the author makes references, but really it's the reader. And the more creative the reader is, the more such references they will find no matter the work.

    7. Re:Psychohistory by metacell · · Score: 1

      I can't speak for the GP, but the idea that a small, secret group of people can and should manipulate history "for the good of mankind" may be seen as distasteful, regardless of what political ideology you read into it.

      I enjoyed the books when I read them in my teens, though, and I still think they raise many interesting questions, despite how naive the answers may seem by today's standards.

    8. Re:Psychohistory by Nimey · · Score: 1

      Or maybe you're so immersed in politics that you see politics everywhere you look.

      Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    9. Re:Psychohistory by gmuslera · · Score: 2

      As opposed as i.e. today? Anyway, you should read Asimov's The End of Eternity too, where that idea is discussed.

    10. Re:Psychohistory by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      So "Candy" had no relation to "Candide"?

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    11. Re:Psychohistory by metacell · · Score: 1

      I've read The End of Eternity too, and thought it was ok. Not as mind-blowing as the Foundation trilogy.

  15. but... by slashmydots · · Score: 1

    But what if there's the triumvirate of the LA Times, Wikileaks, and Miss Cleo's pyschic hotline and one of them disagrees and files a minority report? Then how will anyone take this precrime prediction seriously? lol.

    1. Re:but... by Teresita · · Score: 1

      How come Miss Cleo's Hotline needs me to STATE my Visa number and expiration date?

  16. Butterfly effect. by bmo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    And there is no accounting in any of this for the actions of a dumbass Lance Corporal and his buddies inducing utter chaos into the system.

    Scene: Djibouti near the Ethiopian Border. A bunch of Lance Corporal Marines and their CO.

    "Stand watch here, and if anyone in Ethiopia comes over, you need to tell us and chase them back into Ethiopia. But under no circumstances are you to go into Ethiopia yourselves, not even if they're firing upon you. We mean it. Got that?"

    "Sure thing"

    Armed Ethiopians of doubtful allegiance cross the border into Djibouti
    Lance corporals enthusiastically chase them back and cross into Ethiopia themselves while armed

    Possible outcome that didn't happen:
    "Daddy, what did you do in the Ethiopian War?"
    "Our unit started it."

    This may or may not be true. But I tell this story to make a point. Like a butterfly flapping its wings in the Inter-tropical Convergence Zone to trigger a hurricane, the action of a few dumbasses can trigger some serious shit. Since we're talking psychohistory here, Hari Seldon's Plan broke down under the chaos of the Mule. You can do all the modelling you want, but complex systems such as human societies and such, are prone to chaos introduced by small numbers of influential people, whether they know it or not and good luck trying to model *that* and predict on it.

    --
    BMO

    1. Re:Butterfly effect. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The point is that you cannot predict what 1 unit will do but there is a point that with enough data on training and background you can predict that if you have X number of units protecting a border 1 of them will cross it the same as you cannot predict the next roll of a dice but you know eventually you will roll a 6

    2. Re:Butterfly effect. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It is the difference of electrons. You cannot predict the path of an electron, it's wavefunction fuzzes out if you try. But give me 10^9 of them, and V=IR falls out.

    3. Re:Butterfly effect. by gmuslera · · Score: 1

      I would call it the blue butterfly effect, for PKDick's The lethal factor story Knowing the future and acting, without knowing the effect of that action could get strange results.

    4. Re:Butterfly effect. by Teresita · · Score: 1

      You cannot predict what one air molecule will do, but give me 10^9 of them and you still can't predict the weather out more than five days in advance. Asimov had a thousand years laid out like a movie script. And we, being young and naive, believed it.

    5. Re:Butterfly effect. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullshit. Humans are predictable morons. The chances of a unit doing something like in your example are well known and can be statistically modeled.

      Sure, there will always be the "random" factor but 9 times out of 10 you can predict everything because humans are idiots and that can be forecast.

    6. Re:Butterfly effect. by monoqlith · · Score: 1

      I agree. Group behavior is much simpler than individual behavior. When people act in a group they become extensions of a system. When they act alone, they must justify (and rationalize) their action, and this process can become very complicated. For example, the health care Supreme Court decision. In-Trade got it completely wrong. Our modelling systems, which are well applied to aggregate decision-making, failed when trying to predict the actions of a single wildcard sitting on the Supreme Court, who acted unpredictably.

    7. Re:Butterfly effect. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Psychohistory wasn't supposed to predict the actions of a handful of people. In the situation you described, it would predict that the volatile Ethiopian situation would arise, and then assume that *someone* would be stupid enough to set it off.

      It's an interesting question about the level of chaos in history, actually. If your described marine unit hadn't set off the Ethiopian War, would someone else have done it? The Weimar Republic was ripe for a charismatic dictator - if Hitler had taken up art instead, would someone else have taken his place? It's at least plausible that the answer is yes - and if it is, then the actions of a few people don't actually make a great deal of difference.

    8. Re:Butterfly effect. by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      It's worth pointing out that, if the scenario you described ever actually started a war, then there were probably a lot of other things already pressing very hard for war, and all they needed was a hair trigger to set things off.

      For example, if that happened on the Iranian border right now, yeah, it might trigger war. But if it happened on the Canadian/US border, then it would be something for us to joke about. And it actually has happened on the US-Mexico border.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    9. Re:Butterfly effect. by khallow · · Score: 1

      You cannot predict what one air molecule will do, but give me 10^9 of them and you still can't predict the weather out more than five days in advance. Asimov had a thousand years laid out like a movie script. And we, being young and naive, believed it.

      And where would that single air molecule be five days out? In Asimov's defense, he not only had the movie script, but he had the director, the Second Foundation (and later a sentient planet) to boot things in the right direction. A controlled system generally is easier to predict than one without controls.

    10. Re:Butterfly effect. by jasnw · · Score: 3, Interesting

      But the point of Asimov's version of psycohistory is that the actions of one person, unless they are a tremendous outlier such as the Mule, don't matter. In the case you give, there's this powderkeg called Ethiopia just waiting to explode. If the lance corporal and his buddies you postulate aren't there to trigger things, some other idiot will. At least one of Asiomov's stories involves one of the Traders trying like crazy to make sure that things come out correctly, only to fail at every attempt. When all looks like failure, the "dead hand of Harry Seldon" reaches in through another agency totally outside the Trader's framework to put things back on track. It's not that a particular match will light up history's bonfire, it's that once history has built the bonfire some match will.

    11. Re:Butterfly effect. by khallow · · Score: 1

      The Weimar Republic was ripe for a charismatic dictator - if Hitler had taken up art instead, would someone else have taken his place?

      It's worth noting that there were other politicians actively undermining the Weimar Republic at the time and angling to be the dictator in charge. Both previous chancellors both did significant things to bring the Republic down.

      One ran a black ops group that supervised both the systematic subversion of the Treaty of Versailles and the development of novel military tactics (the blitzkrieg and combined arms tactics that Nazi Germany later used to great effect). The other overthrew the most powerful of the provinces of the Weimar Republic which was also one of the larger obstacles to any end of democracy in the Republic.

      Hitler just happened to be the one that ended up on top.

    12. Re:Butterfly effect. by LittleImp · · Score: 1

      That story is ridiculous. I'm no psychohistorian but I saw that war coming without ever knowing that the lance corporal was a dumbass. Everything ever is done by single persons in the end. They still act according to statistics. Seldon's plan obviously broke because the plan goes on for so long and the chance for deviation increases.

    13. Re:Butterfly effect. by metacell · · Score: 1

      Statistically, yes. But history may take very different paths depending on if a moron crosses the border tomorrow, or if it takes ten years.

    14. Re:Butterfly effect. by Isaac+Remuant · · Score: 1

      First off, no. We didn't believe it. We were reading science fiction.

      Second, it had a pretty cool explanation that implied that they would reduce all the possibilities so the foundation wold really have no choices as to what to do and therefore,wouldn't deviate from the plan.

      Third, the plan was guided by the second foundation to prevent deviations (which did happen).

      Fourh, Science FICTION!

      --
      "Science can amuse and fascinate us all, but it is engineering that changes the world. " - Asimov.
  17. Yeah this is working out great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHUB8HVKUJc

  18. But I thought... by TWX · · Score: 2

    But I thought that The Mule left office in 2009...

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    1. Re:But I thought... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They always get replaced by another.

    2. Re:But I thought... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      He was replaced by The Jackass.

    3. Re:But I thought... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And now for the 10,000 years, we'll be serving mayhem on a plate with a side order of chaotic perturbations in the dark energy field. The discovery of the Higgs boson came to late to counteract the belief in radical acceptance or cosmic existentialism.

    4. Re:But I thought... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you mean replaced by the porchmonkey.

      Next up is the windup robot president.

  19. Hmm by lightknight · · Score: 1

    So the only way to change the world is to create someone who is unpredictable.

    --
    I am John Hurt.
    1. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like The Golden Path, eh?

    2. Re:Hmm by PPH · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah. Like some electrician in a shipyard in Gdansk who gets pissed off about politics. The Warsaw Pact nations never saw that one coming.

      Note to architect: Don't upset the electrical contractors.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  20. Predicting the present by k(wi)r(kipedia) · · Score: 1

    Science fiction stories that appear to predict the future do so only because they're already true. They're not so much predictions about the future as caricatures of the present, the modern equivalent of Aesop's fables or the biblical parables. Big Brother already existed in some form in the Soviet Union when Orwell wrote 1984 (1948). Psychohistory is behavioral psychology given a statistical twist.

    1. Re:Predicting the present by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Intuitively, Psychohistory is more comprehensive then that. For example it also implies a social intellect as suggested by Jungian psychology as well as an artificial intelligence based upon that theory.

  21. But by rossdee · · Score: 1

    Seldon's plan only workrd because he had the Second Foundation to keep the Empire on track.

    1. Re:But by Arancaytar · · Score: 1

      And in the end it was moot anyway because Olivaw went with the hivemind plan instead. Or, I suppose, came up with it and left it up to Trevize to decide.

  22. Wait... by Alimony+Pakhdan · · Score: 1

    Is this saying that by studying history you can get an understanding of future events? HOW COME NO ONE EVER TOLD ME THIS BEFORE? (sorry)

  23. Oil pipelines in Afghanistan ? by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 2

    We are protecting oil pipelines in Afghanistan

     
    Why was I never told that Afghanistan being an important oil producing country?
     

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:Oil pipelines in Afghanistan ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Its does (or alteast hopes to) carry a lot of oil to China & India (from Tajikistan, Iran, etc)

    2. Re:Oil pipelines in Afghanistan ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not producing. The oil/gas pripeslines are to transport. Googling "Afghanistan oil gas pipelines" might be a good start.

  24. See also _In the Country of the Blind_ by steveha · · Score: 2

    The idea of psychohistory was also explored by Michael F. Flynn in a novel called In the Country of the Blind; he didn't use that word, but rather the word "cliology". In that novel, cliology was independently invented by multiple people at approximately the same time, and there were several secret societies trying to use cliology to model what would happen and steer the course of history. But with multiple societies working at cross-purposes, things got a bit messy at times. (But at least one of the secret societies just used cliology to pick stocks and get fabulously wealthy.)

    http://books.google.com/books/about/In_the_Country_of_the_Blind.html?id=xVqB5-DLRAgC

    It's not a perfect book, but some of the ideas are really interesting.

    steveha

    --
    lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
  25. 2012 by cstacy · · Score: 1

    Vote MULE in 2012!

    1. Re:2012 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Vote MULE in 2012!"

      You mean the one with the dog on top? Then we'd have half of Grimm's "Town Musicians of Bremen"

    2. Re:2012 by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      Grimm's "Town Musicians of Bremen"

      Ah, who says you can't learn anything interesting by reading Slashdot.

      You mean the one with the dog on top?

      Oddly, the dog in the story goes on top of a donkey rather than an elephant.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    3. Re:2012 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't have to make the voting decision. MULE will make it for you and then let you think you made it yourself.

  26. Re:Other uses? by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

    My memory on this is fuzzy.... but wasn't there a bit that said the farther in the future you go, the more accurate the prediction? For example, you couldn't predict that a group of soldiers would do something horrific next month, but you could predict that a year from now hostilities would begin... the same ones partially caused by previously mentioned incident.

    I hope I'm remebering the correct story...

    --

    "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

  27. Re:Other uses? by methano · · Score: 5, Funny

    I read the Foundation Trilogy about 40 years ago and have been terrified ever since that this type of technology would be used in marketing. Thank goodness we're only using it in war.

  28. Re:Other uses? by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 2

    wasn't there a bit that said the farther in the future you go, the more accurate the prediction? For example, you couldn't predict that a group of soldiers would do something horrific next month, but you could predict that a year from now hostilities would begin... the same ones partially caused by previously mentioned incident

     
    The longer you extend the time frame, the longer your prediction will come true - for example:
     
    If one predicts that an air plane will crash today, killing hundreds, that prediction might have a very slim chance of becoming true
     
    But if one predicts that event to happen sometimes in the next decades ...
     
      You get my drift
     

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
  29. modeling geography by mandginguero · · Score: 1

    I think that there are certain behaviors that this version of psychohistory can more easily model. When looking at 2 dimensional maps, given features of the environment are represented on the map, then there are some unequivocal positions of power from which to stage incursions or defensive stands. If your model accounts for shifting boundaries of who controls what territory, it can predict in which direction the next skirmish may move, jumping between these strategic nodes. Now get it to try to predict something completely different, such as attendance at a sporting event. Maybe you could model the traffic congestion as a function of temporary population density....

    --
    i don't know karate, but i know ca-razy
  30. Its already been done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

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

    This book is exactly what that is about, and its pretty damn good.

  31. Re: protecting oil pipelines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    That's utter bull hockey. We have patrol bases in areas that have nothing but marijuana fields around them. We have Police Mentoring Teams (PMTs) working with Afghan National Police in towns that are on the major highway that runs in a kind of circle around the country. In all my time there, I never once even SAW an oil pipeline.

    Your information is complete drivel.

  32. Re:Moslem beheading non-moslem by jbburks · · Score: 2, Insightful

    And in the countries the US hasn't gotten to yet, they just stone women who've been raped for adultery, sell daughters into marriage and generally work against any sort of progress.

  33. Re:Other uses? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    War is just a HUGE marketing ploy!

  34. Re:Other uses? by Teresita · · Score: 3, Funny

    That's very true! In the Bible a prophet like Ezekiel would "prophesy" that the city of Tyre would be sacked, and low and behold, three centuries later, Alexander II sacked that sucker. Tyre sacked, who woulda thunk it?

  35. Re:Moslem beheading non-moslem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    "And in the countries the US hasn't gotten to yet, they just stone women who've been raped for adultery, sell daughters into marriage and generally work against any sort of progress."

    Are you talking about Kansas?

  36. wait wait wait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But don't forget the "fat tailed" distributions of Mandelbrot, in reference to the most subjective, human pool of data out there - the markets. While the "quants" made tons of money automating trading in the early 00s, they also caused a huge unraveling of the world economy due to their reliance on the Black-Scholes formula, which cannot handle a massive and irrational load of paranoid and human decision inputs. The model this article references, at a glance, would not predict very large outlier events (such as 9/11), but may serve as a somewhat functional tool for day to day insurgent events. In fact, one could posit that the insurgency right now is simply a market, developing its own new market niches (ied maker, spotter, recruiter, martyr, etc) - and may be a stable entity on the insurgent side for economic reasons - which this article seems to reinforce. Who knows - they may have just a transformation of Black-Scholes in the first place (and considered themselves genuises for comparing violence to economic transactions, which is kind of cold would probably work pretty well). In that respect, it may predict that the insurgency is not necessarily an emotional one anymore - it may be more economic.

  37. No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You must learn to predict and deal with outliers, of course you must be right first.

  38. So... by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

    What happens when Psychohistory predicts that Psychohistory won't work?

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    1. Re:So... by jaymemaurice · · Score: 1

      We realize that we only added the data that was releevant to assist in our computer model comming up to that conclusion. Interestingly, google search queries would be very interesting to mine.

      --
      120 characters ought to be enough for anyone
  39. Except by Dunbal · · Score: 1

    Cue the Hawthorne effect. The model will stop being effective if it ever, well, becomes effective.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  40. I knew you were going to post that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, not you specifically, but I calculated that the probability of a post like yours was near 99.9% sometime in July.

  41. Ididn't start it.. he did. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't that how the U.S. took California and a bunch of other territory from the Mexicans?

    My understanding is that it was a small area under contention - but it was used as an excuse for the U.S. to take a huge piece of land by force.

    The winner gets to write history... 'he started it' sounds so childish but it's a game played by public relations people of all kinds.

  42. Re:Other uses? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    War is good for business , peace is good for business ?

  43. Re:Moslem beheading non-moslem by z0idberg · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And in the countries the US hasn't gotten to yet, they just stone women who've been raped for adultery, sell daughters into marriage and generally work against any sort of progress.

    From Wikipedia:
    Current dowry practices
    #India
    #Bangladesh
    #Pakistan
    #Nepal
    #Afghanistan
    #Vietnam


    Good luck with getting through that list. Are they starting their way from the bottom and working upwards? Perhaps should have ticked the bottom one off before moving to the next one.

  44. The Hunter-Seeker Algorithm by Arancaytar · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "If I determine the enemy's disposition of forces while I have no perceptible form, I can concentrate my forces while the enemy is fragmented. The pinnacle of military deployment approaches the formless. If it is formless, then even the deepest spy cannot discern it nor the wise make plans against it." Sun Tzu, Art of War, Datalinks.

    (Actual psychohistory, though, was supposed to predict events over a thousand years. Not happening.)

  45. You haven't been to Afghanistan, have you? by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 1

    We have patrol bases in areas that have nothing but marijuana fields around them

     
    I seriously doubt you've ever been to Afghanistan

    People there don't plant marijuana there

    The Afghan people cultivate poppy - and harvest the "juice" to make morphine, and ... heroin
     

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:You haven't been to Afghanistan, have you? by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      We have patrol bases in areas that have nothing but marijuana fields around them

      I seriously doubt you've ever been to Afghanistan

      People there don't plant marijuana there

      O RLY?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:You haven't been to Afghanistan, have you? by SJHillman · · Score: 1

      In addition to the other poster's link, here's another about the marijuana forests

      http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15239501/ns/world_news-weird_news/t/taliban-takes-high-cover/#.UAbTZv3HhvI

    3. Re:You haven't been to Afghanistan, have you? by idontgno · · Score: 1

      People there don't plant marijuana there

      That Afghan black hash you must be smoking would beg to disagree with you.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    4. Re:You haven't been to Afghanistan, have you? by morgauxo · · Score: 1

      Just because you've heard of the one doesn't mean nobody is growing the other. I see a lot of corn fields in my part of the US. Does nobody grow beans here?

  46. This is not psychohistory by eennaarbrak · · Score: 1

    This is not psychohistory, but actuarial science. Psychohistory is about predicting future behaviour of groups by analysing their psychology.

    Psychohistory is the holy grail of psychology. Philosophers and other scientists have expressed doubt about psychology's "scientific" credentials by pointing out their bad history in predicting human behaviour. As an example: researchers asked psychologists and psychiatrists to predict which offenders that were just given parole would re-offend. At the same time, they ran properties of the offenders through an actuarial process. The result? Psychologists and psychiatrists (even the ones who were treating the offenders) predicted the re-offence rate no better than chance, while the actuarial method performed much better (reference: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Incognito-Secret-Lives-David-Eagleman/dp/1847679382).

    1. Re:This is not psychohistory by Prune · · Score: 1

      Rather, it's that some parts of psychology are less scientific than others. It's unfair to generalize. For example, cognitive psychology is completely scientific, with a stronger empirical basis than a physical science such as cosmology.

      --
      "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
  47. Someone Unpredictable: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Female

  48. Afghanistan is a special case ... and may change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Currently the Afghan War goes along like this:

    The Taliban as armed proxies of several Pathan parties in Pakistan surge up over the Pakistan border, towards Kabul. The US tries to whack them. The US in turn (Hillary made a deal to stop this to get the US a line of retreat through Pakistan) zaps Taliban / Pakistani ISI people (they are in fact the same) with Predator drones, and occasionally drops in SEAL teams to whack guys like Osama. Who hid out in Pakistan's West Point, essentially.

    Things are about to change, and change RADICALLY, making all previous models extinct.

    The US is set to withdraw, massively, leaving only a few thousand, next year. Through Pakistan. The probability of nuclear armed Pakistan staging an ambush and battle of annihilation against a retreating America (particularly with a "weak" and Pakistan-connected re-elected Obama) is very, very high. Obama has many connections to prominent ISI-Pakistani families, not to mention his old Occidental College buddy is connected deeply to the ISI/Taliban/Crime rings (they are all the same.) And people within ISI are openly boasting of wiping out a retreating American military like they did Elphinstone's army in 1842. Only one man out of 12,000 survived to reach the British lines. Pakistan has nukes, and ICBMs. No one there is AFRAID of America or its capabilities.

    Meanwhile the US has still, air dominance absent Chinese forces backing their ally Pakistan.

    The probability of disaster is high, but not captured by models. Just as all those junk mortgages rolled into bonds, and bonds of bonds, worked perfectly on the models built to test them, but were easily seen to be disastrous to any who looked and wondered what would happen if gas prices rose, or when the low teaser rates ended, to strawberry pickers making $14K a year with $700K mortgages.

    Unable to be captured by models is: Pakistan's internal rivalries, dysfunction, capture by jihadist interests, perception of a weak American leadership particularly Obama who they do not fear and figure is in their pocket, the view that America retreating is an easy prey, lack of understanding of American Air power, and desire for China to protect its flank against the US/India with ally Pakistan and possibly dominate the Gulf its main oil supply itself. A retreating Army is a sitting duck, and begs to be attacked. Fully half to three quarters of US troops retreating from Afghanistan through Pakistan could be wiped out, given a surprise attack. The impetus to do so would be to become the next ruler of Pakistan, the one who inflicted a great defeat on the Great Satan just like in 1842. Mountains to an extent negate air superiority, and Pakistan has good air defenses.

    Consider this, Pakistan demanded and got an apology from Clinton for the raid that killed Osama, plus other drone attacks, a payoff, and imprisoned for life the doctor that helped us track Osama bin Laden down. The probability that Pakistan, or elements within it which remain highly tribal, simply attack and start to annihilate retreating American forces in Pakistan is high. Dragging the US and eventually China into open conflict neither wants. Britain and France nearly came to war in 1898 over the Fashoda Incident, over who would control the Nile headwaters basically (and thus Egypt and the Suez Canal).

  49. Re:Moslem beheading non-moslem by Serious+Callers+Only · · Score: 3, Informative

    You mean countries like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, staunch US allies who receive billions in funds?

    Your naive trust in the congruence of progress and American involvement astounds me.

  50. Double Morals? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, why is it that in Syria, the same people are our friends, that are our enemies in Afghanistan?

    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article31818.htm
    âAmericaâ(TM)s Syrian Friends and Afghan Foes are Same Peopleâ(TM)

  51. One thing that is easy to predict is by Chrisq · · Score: 0

    One thing that is easy to predict is that where there is Islam there will be violence. White converts to Islam become terrorists. Black Muslims in the Sudan are terrorists. Brown Muslims are terrorists. The one unifying factor is their war-like belief. Anyone who lives freedom and equality, and who has read the Quran and heard what the Muslim scholars and Imams say will hate Islam. Anyone who believes in the freedom of religion will hate the commands to kill apostates. Anyone who believes in the freedom of speech will hate the dictates and fatwas to kill those who condemn this vile religion. Anyone who loves equality will hate the subjugation of women, the punitive taxes on non-muslims, the banning of building non-islamic places of worship. Above all those who love peace will hate the continual call to kill, wage war, rape and injure.

  52. Re:Other uses? by kraut · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I never understood why people believe it's okay to kill people as long as you "respect" their dead bodies afterward.

    --
    no taxation without representation!
  53. Re:Moslem beheading non-moslem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And in the countries the US hasn't gotten to yet, they just stone women who've been raped for adultery, sell daughters into marriage and generally work against any sort of progress.

    Beheading is an advancement we ought to be thanking the USA for...?

  54. Yes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, fiction coming into reality! Most satisfying piece of information that I've read in a long time... I hope for more advances of this type, not just Apple's bullshit

  55. God Emperor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The information must flow.

  56. Humaniform sexbots before psychohistory, please. by Tristao · · Score: 1

    If reality is to follow sci-fi (as is right and proper), please concentrate on getting us a robot labor based decadent society in which humans can live centuries of meaningless pleasure before anyone worries about the fate of humanity.

  57. well, we trust people by superwiz · · Score: 1

    If we trust people to become experts in predicting things, and brains are essentially probability estimators, then why not trust other probability estimating machines?

    --
    Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
  58. Sorry, OLD news. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry in the psych field this is old news. On the bright side the PR companies are getting better at using this data ... oh wait ...the Crew from Minority Report just showed up, asked me to redact what I was about to post.

  59. Knowing is not controlling by Bysshe · · Score: 1

    I'm not too worried about this. Statistics can always be used to extrapolate changes of things happening. Knowing what will happen doesn't mean you can control it and then knowing that someone can predict it will alter the outcomes anyways (think minority report). So overall as long as the predictions are made public and doesn't get classified we'll be fine.

    Hopefully these techniques get spread around the world so that the classifying the information won't work.

    --
    Read what I mean, not what I wrote.
  60. Re:Other uses? by newcastlejon · · Score: 1

    I hope I'm remebering the correct story...

    Sounds to me like Statistical Probabilities. That's pretty much the exact line.

    --
    If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
  61. Re:Other uses? by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

    Not quite. The idea of psychohistory was that you could predict the actions of a large group of people, but it didn't handle individuals at all (e.g. the Mule). It's basically just an extension of probability. Your odds of correctly predicting a single roll of a six-sided die aren't very good, your odds of closely predicting the total of 20 rolls is pretty good, and your odds of closely predicting the total of a million rolls is pretty close to 100%. Similarly, psychohistory can't predict the actions of one person, and can't do a good job of predicting the actions of a planetary population, but it gets pretty good at predicting the actions of a galactic population.

  62. Re:Other uses? by InvisibleClergy · · Score: 1

    Ah, good ol' rules 34 and 35 of the Ferengi Rules of Acquisition.

  63. Re:Other uses? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

    My memory on this is fuzzy.... but wasn't there a bit that said the farther in the future you go, the more accurate the prediction?

    You have to remember that Foundation was fiction, and like almost all SF, the realities aren't going to match the fiction. Don't take a lot of stock in Foundation, it was an excellent series but don't quote it in a college paper unless the subject is literature.

  64. Re:Other uses? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You think if it were used in marketing, you'd know about it?
    And what again made you buy your latest electronic toy?

  65. Fascist sympathizers in the US and UK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "That was why Neville Chamberlain let Hitler get away with as much as he did in the 1930s (That and that Britain couldn't afford another war either). That was why the US retreated into an isolationist/protectionist shell."

    You're forgetting that there were plenty of fasicst sympathizers in the US and the UK. The fasicsts were often seen as allies in the fight against communism, and as natural allies of conservatives, corporate interests, and others on the right. Hitler and Mussolini were admired by many in the US. And that's not to mention how common and accepted antisemitism was in the US and the UK in those years.

  66. Re:Other uses? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

    Rule 34 of Acquisition -- You can profit from porn of it, no exceptions?

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
  67. Re:Moslem beheading non-moslem by morgauxo · · Score: 1

    Nah, we already invaded that one back in the 1830s, they just haven't figured it out yet.

  68. Re:Moslem beheading non-moslem by morgauxo · · Score: 1

    Sure! The numbers are a lot lower.

  69. How to escape the pleaaure trap of 21st century by Paul+Fernhout · · Score: 1
    --
    A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
  70. Re:Moslem beheading non-moslem by InspectorGadget1964 · · Score: 0

    If you compare the statistics for stonings and beheadings agains the number of murders in the US, I think I'll take my chances of being beheaded

  71. Why wars (or relate) at all by Keith+Henson · · Score: 1

    I tied wars into evolutionary psychology in "Evolutionary Psychology, Memes and the Origin of War." It is certainly predictable from the economic prospects of a population.

    --
    End MGM. Get prospective parents of boys to Google: Men do complain