Cooperation in simple games is often Pareto optimal, but it is rarely Nash stable. In an evolutionary sense, cooperation strategies will tend to be passed on if cooperation gives a Pareto improvement to cheating. As in your cited example, cheating is very difficult so that cheating to gain advantage really doesn't gain any advantage. It requires a change in metabolic processes and losing the ability to receive important signals.
We smart animals can evaluate when its in our interest to stick together and when its in our interest to cheat. Most of the economic research shows we're nowhere near the point of Homo economicus - we're still irrational, we prefer to be cooperative more than theory predicts, and our decisions are hard to model. That is, humans are still far too nice to be understood. If we designed "rational machines" with today's understanding of "rational," we would be creating things more insidious than MBAs, lawyers, and politicians.
1/3 of America might not buy food raised by Atheists or Muslims. Should we keep Atheist and Muslim food labeled too so it can't be sold in the Bible Belt? How much should we increase the cost of food to monitor whether it is really Heathen-Free (TM)?
In the field of finance, where the word "return" is used most often, "return" is defined as the incremental increase from a unit of a process. Hence, a 24% "return" is correct. For what its worth, one plus the return is a "return relative."
People in other countries get killed or worse every election. When a dictator gets 99% of the vote, I think, "Wow, what a brave 1%. Too bad they and their families are getting tortured right now..."
Doctors who prescribe antibiotics usually know when it's a virus - they prescribe it so you'll think they're doing something for you while you enjoy the placebo effect. It's more customer service than ignorance.
Is it possible that they aren't "buying" these domains at all, but "reserving" them for their customers? I know this may sound a little far fetched to those who have no experience with customer service, but perhaps they are trying to provide a better customer experience by reserving names immediately when you search for it, so if it is available, you can buy it (and from them). They could be opening themselves to lawsuits if you searched for the domain, they said it was available, and then 12 hours later you couldn't buy it from them because they hadn't reserved it.
Forgive my assumption that businesspeople aren't all evil.
This isn't an election, which is the only "democratic" part of America.
This is the legislative process. A filibuster is an attempt to delay a cloture vote. A cloture vote is an end to debate on an issue so the issue can be voted on. A filibuster threat which causes more debate on an issue and gives Senators more time to confer with their staff and constituents.
Which is more democratic - taking more time to debate the merits of an important action or rushing that action?
There is one industry that all economies need a monopoly in, and that's the killing people industry. Police take out gangs, armies take out insurgents, and hegemons take out rouge states. This isn't just a fact of the world, there's an important reason behind this.
A gang kills one person, they can beat up a few dozen more, and for every person that gets beat up, a hundred are robbed and extorted. An insurgency is a successful gang that is throwing the police out, and taking over "taxes" and making their own laws.
When an insurgency succeeds, they have the choice of joining the system, and kissing a hegemon's hand by agreeing to economic and military customs and treaties, or they can further their own interests by antagonizing the hegemon. Rogue states leverage the fact that they're "outside the system" to fund and arm gangs and insurgencies in neighboring countries to get political leverage. You leave a "rogue state" alone long enough, they succeed in overthrowing neighbors, and doing other things "the system" denounces, like genocide. The next step after that is getting enough of a military core that it's not worth it for the hegemon to take them out, like a gang that gets too many gangbangers on the street for the city cops to touch them.
The point is that Bush seems to implicitly argue nuclear weapons are that tipping point when it's not worth it for America to go into Iran. The tipping point was reached a long time ago, and the US military could take Iran down, but couldn't build it back up again. Iran is a non-issue, not because they won't overthrow countries and nuke enemies, but rather because it will take at least that much for it to be worth America getting off her lazy ass to raise taxes and unite for a war.
While I don't argue that the effects aren't caused by nuclear contamination, there's also the known placebo effect. Try telling your neighbors "looks like the worst nuclear disaster in history just happened around the corner," and see how long it takes to find them sick in bed with a lump somewhere.
"The number of healthy people sank from 1987 to 1996 from 59 % to 18%" is almost certainly not nuclear related - the number of "unhealthy" people doubles to 82% of the population? The most likely cause is probably the collapse of the Soviet Union between 1990 and 1992, and thus the collapse of a good (and expensive) medical system (and a surge in honesty). Given the choice between not being able to see a doctor for five years or a low dose of radiation, I'll take the radiation.
There's also the records and politics issue here that I wouldn't discount. The Soviet Union was trying to downplay everything, while the newly independent Ukraine and Belarus were trying to get money from Russia to cover the damages of Chernobyl.
My point isn't that I think 69 people died, I would guess a ballpark more like 500-2000. My point is we'll probably never have a good estimate of what really happened. But it's almost certainly less than 5,000 - the number of Americans who die from asthma every year, mostly due to air pollution.
"Most in search of malware for offensive use know the good stuff"
For those of you native English speakers who also had to read this five times to understood what it meant, I shall clarify:
most - adj. Used here as a noun. Also used as an adverb. search - v. Used here as a noun offensive - adj. Noun if you read too much Iraq news like me. use - v. Used here as a noun good - adj. Typically used to describe desirable qualities for humanity. Used here to denote desirable qualities for bad people.
Three levels of prepositions in a clause - "in * of * for *" is confusing. So is using two present tense verbs, "use know," back to back.
Piss won't help with any nerve agent. That tactic was partly effective against chlorine gas, which is soluble in water, so any water soaked rag will partly protect you. I say 'partly,' because even if your lungs and mucous membranes in the mouth and nose were protected in low concentrations of the gas, your eyes and skin are not. If it's a high concentration, you can see and smell it coming, so you get a chance to run. Of course, if you're stuck in a high concentration of chlorine gas, you're pretty much boned.
How many millions/billions spent on this that could've gone to the people of the US?
How many billions are going to American consumers to buy neon toothbrushes instead of being spent to win a war we happen to be in? Soldiers are "at work" 24/7, and getting paid maybe $2500/mo with all the combat zone bonuses. Many aren't making minimum wage, because they're working >100 hours a week, and the military is exempt from minimum wage laws. The VA is denying claims for injured vets, because they don't have the money to take care of them. Where, indeed, are our national priorities?
Your other point is mostly valid. Worth noting that nuclear weapon development facilities are typically protected with lots and lots of SAMs...
Quoth the Wikipedia "Punitive Damages:" "statistical studies by law professors and the Department of Justice have found that punitive damages are only awarded in two percent of civil cases which go to trial, and that the median punitive damage award is between $38,000 and $50,000.[7]
In response to judges and juries which award high punitive damages verdicts, the Supreme Court of the United States has made several decisions which limit awards of punitive damages through the due process of law clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. In a number of cases, the Court has indicated that a 4:1 ratio between punitive and compensatory damages is broad enough to lead to a finding of constitutional impropriety, and that any ratio of 10:1 or higher is almost certainly unconstitutional."
If the song costs $1, and punitive damages of $749 are assessed, it's almost certainly unconstitutional. So why should it be legal statutorily?
This isn't 21% of the "national budget" - the number this alludes to is from Federal Government spending. Note that Social Security and Medicare, the two largest government obligation that spend more than a trillion dollars a year aren't even in the Federal Government budget. Nor is unemployment spending.
The best measure of military spending is percentage of GDP. The US spends 4% of GDP on the military. In 1999, Clinton slashed it down to 3%. In 1986 under Reagan, it had been 6.2%. At the height of World War II, it had been about 38%.
North Korea, on the other hand, spends 20-25% of GDP on its military. Britain and France spend about 2.2% of GDP, and these are two of the most capable militaries on Earth. The US has more obligations though - leading NATO, the defense of South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Afghanistan, Iraq, the Gulf States, the smaller Pacific States, securing the seas around Somalia, around Singapore, the Carribean, etc.
The US is a great power, but with great power comes great responsibility. The US is notable in history as being rather beneficent in fulfilling her obligations.
Suppose there is a warranted internet espionage activity that is good for America that complies with FISA and the Constitution. In order to not compromise this activity, you would need the filter that finds what you're allowed to look at to be safe, wouldn't you? So everything that goes in SHOULD be unfiltered if this is in compliance with the law.
I'd like to see the robustness analysis of this metric. 18.5 to 25 is "normal" and 25 to 30 is "over weight." But according to this random link, in 1960 the US average was 25, and in 2002 it was 28. So, "overweight" is +/-3 from average, while "normal" is -3 to -9.5. Shouldn't we expect the average people to be the healthiest?
The correct measure is almost certainly deviation from average.
Slashdot Mirror
"Realization" has a specific meaning - cashing out.
That was funny, but atheists do kill people for having different beliefs too: Anarchists, Nazis, Soviets, Maoists...
Cooperation in simple games is often Pareto optimal, but it is rarely Nash stable. In an evolutionary sense, cooperation strategies will tend to be passed on if cooperation gives a Pareto improvement to cheating. As in your cited example, cheating is very difficult so that cheating to gain advantage really doesn't gain any advantage. It requires a change in metabolic processes and losing the ability to receive important signals.
We smart animals can evaluate when its in our interest to stick together and when its in our interest to cheat. Most of the economic research shows we're nowhere near the point of Homo economicus - we're still irrational, we prefer to be cooperative more than theory predicts, and our decisions are hard to model. That is, humans are still far too nice to be understood. If we designed "rational machines" with today's understanding of "rational," we would be creating things more insidious than MBAs, lawyers, and politicians.
1/3 of America might not buy food raised by Atheists or Muslims. Should we keep Atheist and Muslim food labeled too so it can't be sold in the Bible Belt? How much should we increase the cost of food to monitor whether it is really Heathen-Free (TM)?
In the field of finance, where the word "return" is used most often, "return" is defined as the incremental increase from a unit of a process. Hence, a 24% "return" is correct. For what its worth, one plus the return is a "return relative."
People in other countries get killed or worse every election. When a dictator gets 99% of the vote, I think, "Wow, what a brave 1%. Too bad they and their families are getting tortured right now..."
Doctors who prescribe antibiotics usually know when it's a virus - they prescribe it so you'll think they're doing something for you while you enjoy the placebo effect. It's more customer service than ignorance.
Is it possible that they aren't "buying" these domains at all, but "reserving" them for their customers? I know this may sound a little far fetched to those who have no experience with customer service, but perhaps they are trying to provide a better customer experience by reserving names immediately when you search for it, so if it is available, you can buy it (and from them). They could be opening themselves to lawsuits if you searched for the domain, they said it was available, and then 12 hours later you couldn't buy it from them because they hadn't reserved it.
Forgive my assumption that businesspeople aren't all evil.
"See? I just punched myself in the face, no way would anyone make me do that, so I must have free will!"
You just made me punch myself in the face, you insensitive clod.
This isn't an election, which is the only "democratic" part of America.
This is the legislative process. A filibuster is an attempt to delay a cloture vote. A cloture vote is an end to debate on an issue so the issue can be voted on. A filibuster threat which causes more debate on an issue and gives Senators more time to confer with their staff and constituents.
Which is more democratic - taking more time to debate the merits of an important action or rushing that action?
For example: Iran, which has massive leverage over Syria and massive leverage in Lebanon via Hizbollah, today assassinates the chief of operations (the guy who actually runs the military part - most higher level officers spend their time doing political and bureaucratic work) in Lebanon before the election they want Syrian-backed factions to win...
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-beirut12dec12,1,1808825.story
http://www.adnkronos.com/AKI/English/Politics/?id=1.0.1656927911
http://www.arabtimesonline.com/kuwaitnews/faqdetails.asp?faid=717&faqid=9
There is one industry that all economies need a monopoly in, and that's the killing people industry. Police take out gangs, armies take out insurgents, and hegemons take out rouge states. This isn't just a fact of the world, there's an important reason behind this.
A gang kills one person, they can beat up a few dozen more, and for every person that gets beat up, a hundred are robbed and extorted. An insurgency is a successful gang that is throwing the police out, and taking over "taxes" and making their own laws.
When an insurgency succeeds, they have the choice of joining the system, and kissing a hegemon's hand by agreeing to economic and military customs and treaties, or they can further their own interests by antagonizing the hegemon. Rogue states leverage the fact that they're "outside the system" to fund and arm gangs and insurgencies in neighboring countries to get political leverage. You leave a "rogue state" alone long enough, they succeed in overthrowing neighbors, and doing other things "the system" denounces, like genocide. The next step after that is getting enough of a military core that it's not worth it for the hegemon to take them out, like a gang that gets too many gangbangers on the street for the city cops to touch them.
The point is that Bush seems to implicitly argue nuclear weapons are that tipping point when it's not worth it for America to go into Iran. The tipping point was reached a long time ago, and the US military could take Iran down, but couldn't build it back up again. Iran is a non-issue, not because they won't overthrow countries and nuke enemies, but rather because it will take at least that much for it to be worth America getting off her lazy ass to raise taxes and unite for a war.
While I don't argue that the effects aren't caused by nuclear contamination, there's also the known placebo effect. Try telling your neighbors "looks like the worst nuclear disaster in history just happened around the corner," and see how long it takes to find them sick in bed with a lump somewhere.
"The number of healthy people sank from 1987 to 1996 from 59 % to 18%" is almost certainly not nuclear related - the number of "unhealthy" people doubles to 82% of the population? The most likely cause is probably the collapse of the Soviet Union between 1990 and 1992, and thus the collapse of a good (and expensive) medical system (and a surge in honesty). Given the choice between not being able to see a doctor for five years or a low dose of radiation, I'll take the radiation.
There's also the records and politics issue here that I wouldn't discount. The Soviet Union was trying to downplay everything, while the newly independent Ukraine and Belarus were trying to get money from Russia to cover the damages of Chernobyl.
My point isn't that I think 69 people died, I would guess a ballpark more like 500-2000. My point is we'll probably never have a good estimate of what really happened. But it's almost certainly less than 5,000 - the number of Americans who die from asthma every year, mostly due to air pollution.
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/09/2214233
"Most in search of malware for offensive use know the good stuff"
For those of you native English speakers who also had to read this five times to understood what it meant, I shall clarify:
most - adj. Used here as a noun. Also used as an adverb.
search - v. Used here as a noun
offensive - adj. Noun if you read too much Iraq news like me.
use - v. Used here as a noun
good - adj. Typically used to describe desirable qualities for humanity. Used here to denote desirable qualities for bad people.
Three levels of prepositions in a clause - "in * of * for *" is confusing. So is using two present tense verbs, "use know," back to back.
You're welcome.
Piss won't help with any nerve agent. That tactic was partly effective against chlorine gas, which is soluble in water, so any water soaked rag will partly protect you. I say 'partly,' because even if your lungs and mucous membranes in the mouth and nose were protected in low concentrations of the gas, your eyes and skin are not. If it's a high concentration, you can see and smell it coming, so you get a chance to run. Of course, if you're stuck in a high concentration of chlorine gas, you're pretty much boned.
Oh, and the ammonia neutralizing chlorine is also not true.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poison_gas_in_World_War_I
How many millions/billions spent on this that could've gone to the people of the US?
How many billions are going to American consumers to buy neon toothbrushes instead of being spent to win a war we happen to be in? Soldiers are "at work" 24/7, and getting paid maybe $2500/mo with all the combat zone bonuses. Many aren't making minimum wage, because they're working >100 hours a week, and the military is exempt from minimum wage laws. The VA is denying claims for injured vets, because they don't have the money to take care of them. Where, indeed, are our national priorities?
Your other point is mostly valid. Worth noting that nuclear weapon development facilities are typically protected with lots and lots of SAMs...
I was thinking "how do they spend that little"? I still don't believe it.
Los Angeles' abortion of a subway system had a 3 mile extension in 2000. Total cost: $1.5 billion. And subways are an established technology.
Quoth the Wikipedia "Punitive Damages:"
"statistical studies by law professors and the Department of Justice have found that punitive damages are only awarded in two percent of civil cases which go to trial, and that the median punitive damage award is between $38,000 and $50,000.[7]
In response to judges and juries which award high punitive damages verdicts, the Supreme Court of the United States has made several decisions which limit awards of punitive damages through the due process of law clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. In a number of cases, the Court has indicated that a 4:1 ratio between punitive and compensatory damages is broad enough to lead to a finding of constitutional impropriety, and that any ratio of 10:1 or higher is almost certainly unconstitutional."
If the song costs $1, and punitive damages of $749 are assessed, it's almost certainly unconstitutional. So why should it be legal statutorily?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119532412570596991.html
"Sen. Clinton's Push to Double Autos' Average Fuel Economy Is Possible but Complicated"
This isn't 21% of the "national budget" - the number this alludes to is from Federal Government spending. Note that Social Security and Medicare, the two largest government obligation that spend more than a trillion dollars a year aren't even in the Federal Government budget. Nor is unemployment spending.
The best measure of military spending is percentage of GDP. The US spends 4% of GDP on the military. In 1999, Clinton slashed it down to 3%. In 1986 under Reagan, it had been 6.2%. At the height of World War II, it had been about 38%.
North Korea, on the other hand, spends 20-25% of GDP on its military. Britain and France spend about 2.2% of GDP, and these are two of the most capable militaries on Earth. The US has more obligations though - leading NATO, the defense of South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Afghanistan, Iraq, the Gulf States, the smaller Pacific States, securing the seas around Somalia, around Singapore, the Carribean, etc.
The US is a great power, but with great power comes great responsibility. The US is notable in history as being rather beneficent in fulfilling her obligations.
I think that's a pretty clear indicator that nuclear power is currently fairly competitively priced.
Or that it's heavily subsidized.
The Army pilots of the C-23 Sherpa, C-12 Huron, and UC-35 Citations would disagree with you.
Suppose there is a warranted internet espionage activity that is good for America that complies with FISA and the Constitution. In order to not compromise this activity, you would need the filter that finds what you're allowed to look at to be safe, wouldn't you? So everything that goes in SHOULD be unfiltered if this is in compliance with the law.
Innocent until proven guilty.
I'd like to see the robustness analysis of this metric. 18.5 to 25 is "normal" and 25 to 30 is "over weight." But according to this random link, in 1960 the US average was 25, and in 2002 it was 28. So, "overweight" is +/-3 from average, while "normal" is -3 to -9.5. Shouldn't we expect the average people to be the healthiest?
The correct measure is almost certainly deviation from average.