randomWalks

I just posted something about that here: http://www.kalilily.net/weblog/03/07/29/100618.html, suggesting that "It's time to hook these infantile guys up to a VR Sim Planet game and let them play out their fantasies of power and persecution to their dark hearts' content. Then maybe the rest of us can find a way to work together to make the real world the kind of place in which our grandchildren can thrive. Feh on them all!"

I find this a fascinating idea, and pretty unobjectionable. It feels to me like divination, like police detectives employing psychics and the DOD testing out distance viewing. I guess it's also kind of offensive, though.

From slashdot:

"Yes a predictive tool. Basicially, this a way to measure the current "worth" of a particualar idea by using a market-type game theory. As ideas become more likely, their worth rises so they will be bid-up by the masses (of analysts). The most likely will float to the top. The theory is that no one person has perfect (or infinite) insight and information, but thousands of people - each acting independently in a common market - will distill some insight by their collective action. That is classical political-economic theory.

Take the "money and morality" part out and you can see the academic value in a theory like this. Can anybody suggest a better option? Perhaps a bunch of ivory-tower professors and analysts making wild-a** guesses (WAGs) around a conference table? Which WAG is more "valuable" than the others?

Until I saw adam's comment, I just assumed this post was literally a joke. I love the idea.

For one I think it's utterly morbid.

For two if this literally is a market where financial gain or loss is tied to "terrorism," isn't that just ripe for manipulation in evil ways? Do we really need a mechanism where someone can make a fortune based on whether or not an attack occurs? What about a scenario in which you "predict" an attack you perpetrate yourself? Can you make money off that?

Moreover, the system, as administered by the Pentagon, will be hopelessly biased. The system, I'm sure, would only be used for the purposes of predicting attacks on the U.S. and friends. I note that Afghanistan, for example, is not included in the roster of countries for predicting. In terms of Israel, will the system just focus on attacks with Israelis as victims?

Lastly the system buys into the notion that there is a "them" out there out to get an "us". It buys into the notion of there being an actual "war on terror", which I don't believe has anything to do with what the U.S. is doing in the world.

We don't need to be predicting attacks or protecting against them. We need to be worrying about the actions of our government, which is doing more to engender hatred of the U.S. and be a factor in future attacks than anything. This system seems like the opposite.

I agree with zagg, besides the whole grotesque-ness of it, this is a useless idea, easily subject to manipulation. Even Darpa says so:

In a statement, Darpa said the trading idea was "currently a small research program that faces a number of major technical challenges and uncertainties."

"Chief among these," the agency said, "are: Can the market survive and will people continue to participate when U.S. authorities use it to prevent terrorist attacks? Can futures markets be manipulated by adversaries?"

Do you really need to do millions of $$$ in research to answer these questions?

What about a scenario in which you "predict" an attack you perpetrate yourself? Can you make money off that?

My friend, the US government has been doing exactly this for fucking 300 years.

My friend, the US government has been doing exactly this for fucking 300 years.

Oh I agree.

But will U.S. attacks on other countries be included in the matrix of what can be bet on? Probably not. Because that's not "terrorism." Right?

The plan has been quashed.

I agree with David. It's not morbid, just overt.