<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_18_2353231</id>
	<title>Bruce Bueno de Mesquita Uses Games To See the Future</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1268934480000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>parallel\_prankster writes <i>"Bruce Bueno de Mesquita is a professor of politics at New York University and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University in California. In his new book, <em>The Predictioneer</em> (<em>The Predictioneer's Game</em> in the US), he describes a <a href="http://www.predictioneersgame.com/">computer model based on game theory</a> which he &mdash; and others &mdash; claim can predict the future with remarkable accuracy. The website also has a game page where he provides an online version of the game and information on how to play."</i> The (semi-paywalled; may need to register)  <a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20527520.500-the-predictioneer-using-games-to-see-the-future.html?page=1">New Scientist has a story on de Mesquita, too</a>; a snippet: "Over the past 30 years, Bueno de Mesquita has made thousands of predictions about hundreds of issues from geopolitics to personal problems. Overall, he claims, his hit rate is about 90 per cent."</htmltext>
<tokenext>parallel \ _prankster writes " Bruce Bueno de Mesquita is a professor of politics at New York University and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University in California .
In his new book , The Predictioneer ( The Predictioneer 's Game in the US ) , he describes a computer model based on game theory which he    and others    claim can predict the future with remarkable accuracy .
The website also has a game page where he provides an online version of the game and information on how to play .
" The ( semi-paywalled ; may need to register ) New Scientist has a story on de Mesquita , too ; a snippet : " Over the past 30 years , Bueno de Mesquita has made thousands of predictions about hundreds of issues from geopolitics to personal problems .
Overall , he claims , his hit rate is about 90 per cent .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>parallel\_prankster writes "Bruce Bueno de Mesquita is a professor of politics at New York University and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University in California.
In his new book, The Predictioneer (The Predictioneer's Game in the US), he describes a computer model based on game theory which he — and others — claim can predict the future with remarkable accuracy.
The website also has a game page where he provides an online version of the game and information on how to play.
" The (semi-paywalled; may need to register)  New Scientist has a story on de Mesquita, too; a snippet: "Over the past 30 years, Bueno de Mesquita has made thousands of predictions about hundreds of issues from geopolitics to personal problems.
Overall, he claims, his hit rate is about 90 per cent.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31533346</id>
	<title>rly?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268938860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I bet he didn't predict that his web server will be dead soon from the slashdotting.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I bet he did n't predict that his web server will be dead soon from the slashdotting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I bet he didn't predict that his web server will be dead soon from the slashdotting.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31536638</id>
	<title>Re:Already been done.</title>
	<author>mrdogi</author>
	<datestamp>1269011640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Can't believe I missed that thought.  Asimov is one of my favorite authors.  My first thought, actually was <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A\_Mind\_Forever\_Voyaging" title="wikipedia.org">"A Mind Forever Voyaging"</a> [wikipedia.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ca n't believe I missed that thought .
Asimov is one of my favorite authors .
My first thought , actually was " A Mind Forever Voyaging " [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can't believe I missed that thought.
Asimov is one of my favorite authors.
My first thought, actually was "A Mind Forever Voyaging" [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31533338</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31533444</id>
	<title>Ahmadinejad</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268940180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He "predicted" that Ahmadinejad wouldn't be reelected to the presidency of Iran, because he's group had no popular support. We all know how that ended.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He " predicted " that Ahmadinejad would n't be reelected to the presidency of Iran , because he 's group had no popular support .
We all know how that ended .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He "predicted" that Ahmadinejad wouldn't be reelected to the presidency of Iran, because he's group had no popular support.
We all know how that ended.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31537588</id>
	<title>Re:Already been done.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269013920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Damn I was hoping to have the first Hari Seldon post.... too slow.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Damn I was hoping to have the first Hari Seldon post.... too slow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Damn I was hoping to have the first Hari Seldon post.... too slow.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31533338</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31533536</id>
	<title>Not "the Future"</title>
	<author>plasticsquirrel</author>
	<datestamp>1268941440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>He doesn't claim to be able to simply "predict the future." Accurate information is only given in situations where a limited number of people are making a decision, and where accurate information is available on them for input. The key is basically that it assumes that serious decisions are made primarily according to the players' own interests (a reasonable assumption). Given the limited problem set, it doesn't seem too unrealistic to believe that one could make a very simple, basic model with some level of accuracy. Even without elegant theories, if accurate inputs and outputs from past events were available, a statistical model could probably be generated automatically.<br> <br>I wonder if eventually every government will spend significant time consulting these machine-oracles? It reminds me of the various mathematical methods of prediction that still exist in China and India. Some of the Chinese models still require a significant amount of abacus shuffling, and a large set of reference books for all the possibilities. These were probably formed from similar basic methods of trying to gather data, compare it, and map inputs to outputs.</htmltext>
<tokenext>He does n't claim to be able to simply " predict the future .
" Accurate information is only given in situations where a limited number of people are making a decision , and where accurate information is available on them for input .
The key is basically that it assumes that serious decisions are made primarily according to the players ' own interests ( a reasonable assumption ) .
Given the limited problem set , it does n't seem too unrealistic to believe that one could make a very simple , basic model with some level of accuracy .
Even without elegant theories , if accurate inputs and outputs from past events were available , a statistical model could probably be generated automatically .
I wonder if eventually every government will spend significant time consulting these machine-oracles ?
It reminds me of the various mathematical methods of prediction that still exist in China and India .
Some of the Chinese models still require a significant amount of abacus shuffling , and a large set of reference books for all the possibilities .
These were probably formed from similar basic methods of trying to gather data , compare it , and map inputs to outputs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He doesn't claim to be able to simply "predict the future.
" Accurate information is only given in situations where a limited number of people are making a decision, and where accurate information is available on them for input.
The key is basically that it assumes that serious decisions are made primarily according to the players' own interests (a reasonable assumption).
Given the limited problem set, it doesn't seem too unrealistic to believe that one could make a very simple, basic model with some level of accuracy.
Even without elegant theories, if accurate inputs and outputs from past events were available, a statistical model could probably be generated automatically.
I wonder if eventually every government will spend significant time consulting these machine-oracles?
It reminds me of the various mathematical methods of prediction that still exist in China and India.
Some of the Chinese models still require a significant amount of abacus shuffling, and a large set of reference books for all the possibilities.
These were probably formed from similar basic methods of trying to gather data, compare it, and map inputs to outputs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31535910</id>
	<title>Re:Already been done.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269009600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pack your backs. We're heading Terminus.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pack your backs .
We 're heading Terminus .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pack your backs.
We're heading Terminus.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31533338</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31533574</id>
	<title>Re:Ahmadinejad</title>
	<author>wizardforce</author>
	<datestamp>1269028920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>We all know how that ended.</p></div></blockquote><p> Well technically, he probably wasn't wrong on that point.  It is quite possible, if not likely, that Ahmadinehad wasn't actually elected by the people of Iran but remained in power because the elections were rigged and didn't really matter anyway.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We all know how that ended .
Well technically , he probably was n't wrong on that point .
It is quite possible , if not likely , that Ahmadinehad was n't actually elected by the people of Iran but remained in power because the elections were rigged and did n't really matter anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We all know how that ended.
Well technically, he probably wasn't wrong on that point.
It is quite possible, if not likely, that Ahmadinehad wasn't actually elected by the people of Iran but remained in power because the elections were rigged and didn't really matter anyway.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31533444</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31533844</id>
	<title>This method is NOT 'future seeing'</title>
	<author>nido</author>
	<datestamp>1268991720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. story headline (emphasis added):</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Bruce Bueno de Mesquita Uses Games To <b>See the Future</b></p> </div><p>Having read the fine links, it seems Mr. de Mesquita doesn't actually "see the future". He gathers data and throws it into his computer, which applies game rules to determine the most likely outcome. To me, "seeing the future" implies predicting the unpredictable - assasinations, a meteor taking out a major area, the abdication of a king (so he could marry his American sweetheart), etc.</p><p>Indeed, here's a quote from the New Scientist article:</p><blockquote><div><p>According to political scientist Nolan McCarty of Princeton University, this is the real strength of the approach. "I suspect the model's success is largely due to the fact that Bueno de Mesquita is very good on the input side; <b>he's a very knowledgeable person and a widely respected political scientist</b>. I'm sceptical that the modelling apparatus adds as much predictive power as he says it does."</p></div></blockquote><p>Methinks Mr. de Mesquita's method works because he meticulously gathers excellent data. If his data was sloppy, his rate of successful "predictions" would be much lower than it is.</p><p>Sometimes events which are 'unpredictable' happen. In retrospect we say, 'oh yes, this event was the only logical event to have taken place'. But such an event is typically unthinkable before it happens. Mr. deMesquita's model doesn't allow for the unpredictable, and is therefore NOT 'future seeing'.</p><p>I have a book on seeing the future. Here's a quote from the first couple pages that I typed up for a 2008 election prediction poll on <a href="http://www.kuro5hin.org/" title="kuro5hin.org">K5</a> [kuro5hin.org] a while back:</p><blockquote><div><p> <b>Your Nostradamus Factor</b>, by <a href="http://www.biomindsuperpowers.com/" title="biomindsuperpowers.com">Ingo Swann</a> [biomindsuperpowers.com] </p><p>Chapter 1: Jumping The Time Barrier</p><p>Like many others, I've had good reasons during my life to assume that the future can be seen. But if I had any doubt it would have vanished as a result of an astonishing forty-five seconds when I found myself in Detmold, then in West Germany, in the spring of 1988.</p><p>Detmold is near the beautiful Teutoburger Forest and a famous pre-Christian shrine, <i>Horn-Externstein</i>, which is a pile of towering rocks riddled with sonorous caves. Until the time of Charlemagne it is said that Nordic kings came to Horn-Externstein to consult seers about the future.</p><p>I was invited to Detmold by Herr Manfred Himmel in April 19988 to give a series of lectures about psi research. This was Herr Himmel's fifth "esoteric" conference, and it was well attended by several hundred people. Herr Himmel was ardent about psychic matters, and the talks of his other speakers were interesting to me. Some of these speakers were also practicing psychics who were busy giving individual "readings" and making predictions about the future.</p><p>I was billed as the famous American superpsychic who had "astonished scientists" since my first formal laboratory experiments in 1970. But I have never given individual "readings," and I <em>never</em> made predictions about the future.</p><p>Many of Herr Himmel's conference attendees were visibly disappointed that I did not give the expected readings and did not foresee the future. Although I had studied "prophecy" and predicting for many years and had even experienced some novel insights about it, I was well aware that most predictions turn out to be wrong. I felt I had a scientific reputation to protect, which would be damaged if I accumulated a list of erroneous predictions. Moreover, I didn't view myself as a future-seer in any professional sense, and I though that predicting should be left to those who were or at least tried to be. </p><p>I gave several lectures and workshops at the conference, as well as the keynote address. I had worked hard at preparing this address, entitling it "Revising Psychic Research Methods and Expectations in the New Age," and even gave the opening statements in German before continuing in English with the aid of a translator. </p><p>This was, I thought, and important lecture. And, indeed, the audience listened attentively. When the talk was over, I asked for questions. The hall was silent -- until an elderly woman sitting in the second row stood up and meekly asked: "Herr Schwann, won't you give us at least <em>one</em> prediction?"</p><p>Caught very unexpectedly and in clear view between the proverbial rock and a hard place, I began grasping for a diplomatic way to get out of making a prediction.</p><p>I was quite angry to be put in this position. But as my anger rose, there was a "noise" or rushing sound around me, and I had a sense of getting "larger." Then there was a clarity of some unfamiliar kind, which somehow was liquid -- and in this liquidness what seemed like a thousand pictures flashed through my consciousness. I had the distinct, lightninglike impression that most people in the audience <em>already knew the future</em> at some "place" deep within them. And I knew that their conscious minds were disconnected from this deep place.</p><p>And I knew what they knew, so to speak, and one aspect of this hidden knowledge boiled up into my intellectual consciousness. Without deciding to do so, I said: "Okay! You want a prediction? Here's a prediction. The Berlin Wall will come down in eighteen to twenty-four months." I spat this out intensely and fast, holding on to the podium with both hands.</p><p>The translator standing by my side looked at me with wide eyes. My own narrowed. "Translate it -- translate it NOW!"</p><p>She did. When it appeared that the audience had not heard it correctly, she translated it again somewhat nervously. The initial silence of the audience was complete. Then they began to rise to their feet, one by one. Someone began to clap, and in the next moment the audience lost its composure and became unglued. Several burst into tears and began to hug each other. And some rushed to the podium and began to hug <i>me</i>. "Wait a moment," I tried to yell into the melee. "It's <em>only</em> a prediction."</p><p>And when it was over, I was absolutely astonished that I had spoken the words in the first place. "Lord," I thought, "my colleagues back in the States are going to think I've lost it. And the skeptics will have a field day." In April 1988 the Soviet Union and the Berlin Wall seemed destined to ride intact into the twenty-first century. </p><p>Once back in New York, I was glad enough to forget that I had made this rash prediction. And it was doubly rash because I had <em>given it a time-window</em> -- eighteen to twenty-four months as of April 1988. <em>Anyone</em> could have predicted that the Wall would come down at some indeterminate future time -- and it probably would. But I had said <i>when</i>.</p><p>Nineteen months later, the Berlin Wall came down almost overnight, a historic event that caught everyone (including the CIA, MI-5, the Mosad, and even the KGB) by complete surprise, if the media are to be believed. And I had one of the most rewarding experiences of my life -- lying in bed eating potato chips, watching my prediction come true on real-time television right before my eyes. Somehow, something in me had spontaneously foreseen a bit of the future, and that part had ultimately manifested itself in the physical universe.</p><p>How does what begins as a mind-image in someone's inner sensing systems ultimately become or manifest itself as fact in the physical universe? How is it that our inner sensing systems can transcend the "absolute" linear time of our physical universe? And <em>why</em> is it that this awesome and important faculty, reported since the dawn of human activity on earth, has the low esteem it does today?</p><p>What is involved here are mysterious processes that we do not know about or, if we do, understand very well. Could everyone foresee better if they understood those processes? And why didn't I realize that I could future-see -- even though I had studied predictions and seers for over thirty years (as part of my overall interest in psychic matters)?</p><p>I am not, of course, the first, nor will I be the last, to foresee some completely unanticipated bit of the future.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div></blockquote><p>There is a later section on "the late, great united States?" where Mr. Swann examines the possibility of the breakup of the United States as a cohesive political entity. It's been a while since I've read it, so I don't remember the specifics of that prediction very well. But how many people would ever have thought that the United States would break up (over the next 100 years) soon after the book was published in 1993? How many people think that the "last remaining superpower" won't last forever today? I'm sure you'd all agree that more people consider breakup an imminent possibility today than 17 years ago....</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From the / .
story headline ( emphasis added ) : Bruce Bueno de Mesquita Uses Games To See the Future Having read the fine links , it seems Mr. de Mesquita does n't actually " see the future " .
He gathers data and throws it into his computer , which applies game rules to determine the most likely outcome .
To me , " seeing the future " implies predicting the unpredictable - assasinations , a meteor taking out a major area , the abdication of a king ( so he could marry his American sweetheart ) , etc.Indeed , here 's a quote from the New Scientist article : According to political scientist Nolan McCarty of Princeton University , this is the real strength of the approach .
" I suspect the model 's success is largely due to the fact that Bueno de Mesquita is very good on the input side ; he 's a very knowledgeable person and a widely respected political scientist .
I 'm sceptical that the modelling apparatus adds as much predictive power as he says it does .
" Methinks Mr. de Mesquita 's method works because he meticulously gathers excellent data .
If his data was sloppy , his rate of successful " predictions " would be much lower than it is.Sometimes events which are 'unpredictable ' happen .
In retrospect we say , 'oh yes , this event was the only logical event to have taken place' .
But such an event is typically unthinkable before it happens .
Mr. deMesquita 's model does n't allow for the unpredictable , and is therefore NOT 'future seeing'.I have a book on seeing the future .
Here 's a quote from the first couple pages that I typed up for a 2008 election prediction poll on K5 [ kuro5hin.org ] a while back : Your Nostradamus Factor , by Ingo Swann [ biomindsuperpowers.com ] Chapter 1 : Jumping The Time BarrierLike many others , I 've had good reasons during my life to assume that the future can be seen .
But if I had any doubt it would have vanished as a result of an astonishing forty-five seconds when I found myself in Detmold , then in West Germany , in the spring of 1988.Detmold is near the beautiful Teutoburger Forest and a famous pre-Christian shrine , Horn-Externstein , which is a pile of towering rocks riddled with sonorous caves .
Until the time of Charlemagne it is said that Nordic kings came to Horn-Externstein to consult seers about the future.I was invited to Detmold by Herr Manfred Himmel in April 19988 to give a series of lectures about psi research .
This was Herr Himmel 's fifth " esoteric " conference , and it was well attended by several hundred people .
Herr Himmel was ardent about psychic matters , and the talks of his other speakers were interesting to me .
Some of these speakers were also practicing psychics who were busy giving individual " readings " and making predictions about the future.I was billed as the famous American superpsychic who had " astonished scientists " since my first formal laboratory experiments in 1970 .
But I have never given individual " readings , " and I never made predictions about the future.Many of Herr Himmel 's conference attendees were visibly disappointed that I did not give the expected readings and did not foresee the future .
Although I had studied " prophecy " and predicting for many years and had even experienced some novel insights about it , I was well aware that most predictions turn out to be wrong .
I felt I had a scientific reputation to protect , which would be damaged if I accumulated a list of erroneous predictions .
Moreover , I did n't view myself as a future-seer in any professional sense , and I though that predicting should be left to those who were or at least tried to be .
I gave several lectures and workshops at the conference , as well as the keynote address .
I had worked hard at preparing this address , entitling it " Revising Psychic Research Methods and Expectations in the New Age , " and even gave the opening statements in German before continuing in English with the aid of a translator .
This was , I thought , and important lecture .
And , indeed , the audience listened attentively .
When the talk was over , I asked for questions .
The hall was silent -- until an elderly woman sitting in the second row stood up and meekly asked : " Herr Schwann , wo n't you give us at least one prediction ?
" Caught very unexpectedly and in clear view between the proverbial rock and a hard place , I began grasping for a diplomatic way to get out of making a prediction.I was quite angry to be put in this position .
But as my anger rose , there was a " noise " or rushing sound around me , and I had a sense of getting " larger .
" Then there was a clarity of some unfamiliar kind , which somehow was liquid -- and in this liquidness what seemed like a thousand pictures flashed through my consciousness .
I had the distinct , lightninglike impression that most people in the audience already knew the future at some " place " deep within them .
And I knew that their conscious minds were disconnected from this deep place.And I knew what they knew , so to speak , and one aspect of this hidden knowledge boiled up into my intellectual consciousness .
Without deciding to do so , I said : " Okay !
You want a prediction ?
Here 's a prediction .
The Berlin Wall will come down in eighteen to twenty-four months .
" I spat this out intensely and fast , holding on to the podium with both hands.The translator standing by my side looked at me with wide eyes .
My own narrowed .
" Translate it -- translate it NOW !
" She did .
When it appeared that the audience had not heard it correctly , she translated it again somewhat nervously .
The initial silence of the audience was complete .
Then they began to rise to their feet , one by one .
Someone began to clap , and in the next moment the audience lost its composure and became unglued .
Several burst into tears and began to hug each other .
And some rushed to the podium and began to hug me .
" Wait a moment , " I tried to yell into the melee .
" It 's only a prediction .
" And when it was over , I was absolutely astonished that I had spoken the words in the first place .
" Lord , " I thought , " my colleagues back in the States are going to think I 've lost it .
And the skeptics will have a field day .
" In April 1988 the Soviet Union and the Berlin Wall seemed destined to ride intact into the twenty-first century .
Once back in New York , I was glad enough to forget that I had made this rash prediction .
And it was doubly rash because I had given it a time-window -- eighteen to twenty-four months as of April 1988 .
Anyone could have predicted that the Wall would come down at some indeterminate future time -- and it probably would .
But I had said when.Nineteen months later , the Berlin Wall came down almost overnight , a historic event that caught everyone ( including the CIA , MI-5 , the Mosad , and even the KGB ) by complete surprise , if the media are to be believed .
And I had one of the most rewarding experiences of my life -- lying in bed eating potato chips , watching my prediction come true on real-time television right before my eyes .
Somehow , something in me had spontaneously foreseen a bit of the future , and that part had ultimately manifested itself in the physical universe.How does what begins as a mind-image in someone 's inner sensing systems ultimately become or manifest itself as fact in the physical universe ?
How is it that our inner sensing systems can transcend the " absolute " linear time of our physical universe ?
And why is it that this awesome and important faculty , reported since the dawn of human activity on earth , has the low esteem it does today ? What is involved here are mysterious processes that we do not know about or , if we do , understand very well .
Could everyone foresee better if they understood those processes ?
And why did n't I realize that I could future-see -- even though I had studied predictions and seers for over thirty years ( as part of my overall interest in psychic matters ) ? I am not , of course , the first , nor will I be the last , to foresee some completely unanticipated bit of the future .
...There is a later section on " the late , great united States ?
" where Mr. Swann examines the possibility of the breakup of the United States as a cohesive political entity .
It 's been a while since I 've read it , so I do n't remember the specifics of that prediction very well .
But how many people would ever have thought that the United States would break up ( over the next 100 years ) soon after the book was published in 1993 ?
How many people think that the " last remaining superpower " wo n't last forever today ?
I 'm sure you 'd all agree that more people consider breakup an imminent possibility today than 17 years ago... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the /.
story headline (emphasis added):Bruce Bueno de Mesquita Uses Games To See the Future Having read the fine links, it seems Mr. de Mesquita doesn't actually "see the future".
He gathers data and throws it into his computer, which applies game rules to determine the most likely outcome.
To me, "seeing the future" implies predicting the unpredictable - assasinations, a meteor taking out a major area, the abdication of a king (so he could marry his American sweetheart), etc.Indeed, here's a quote from the New Scientist article:According to political scientist Nolan McCarty of Princeton University, this is the real strength of the approach.
"I suspect the model's success is largely due to the fact that Bueno de Mesquita is very good on the input side; he's a very knowledgeable person and a widely respected political scientist.
I'm sceptical that the modelling apparatus adds as much predictive power as he says it does.
"Methinks Mr. de Mesquita's method works because he meticulously gathers excellent data.
If his data was sloppy, his rate of successful "predictions" would be much lower than it is.Sometimes events which are 'unpredictable' happen.
In retrospect we say, 'oh yes, this event was the only logical event to have taken place'.
But such an event is typically unthinkable before it happens.
Mr. deMesquita's model doesn't allow for the unpredictable, and is therefore NOT 'future seeing'.I have a book on seeing the future.
Here's a quote from the first couple pages that I typed up for a 2008 election prediction poll on K5 [kuro5hin.org] a while back: Your Nostradamus Factor, by Ingo Swann [biomindsuperpowers.com] Chapter 1: Jumping The Time BarrierLike many others, I've had good reasons during my life to assume that the future can be seen.
But if I had any doubt it would have vanished as a result of an astonishing forty-five seconds when I found myself in Detmold, then in West Germany, in the spring of 1988.Detmold is near the beautiful Teutoburger Forest and a famous pre-Christian shrine, Horn-Externstein, which is a pile of towering rocks riddled with sonorous caves.
Until the time of Charlemagne it is said that Nordic kings came to Horn-Externstein to consult seers about the future.I was invited to Detmold by Herr Manfred Himmel in April 19988 to give a series of lectures about psi research.
This was Herr Himmel's fifth "esoteric" conference, and it was well attended by several hundred people.
Herr Himmel was ardent about psychic matters, and the talks of his other speakers were interesting to me.
Some of these speakers were also practicing psychics who were busy giving individual "readings" and making predictions about the future.I was billed as the famous American superpsychic who had "astonished scientists" since my first formal laboratory experiments in 1970.
But I have never given individual "readings," and I never made predictions about the future.Many of Herr Himmel's conference attendees were visibly disappointed that I did not give the expected readings and did not foresee the future.
Although I had studied "prophecy" and predicting for many years and had even experienced some novel insights about it, I was well aware that most predictions turn out to be wrong.
I felt I had a scientific reputation to protect, which would be damaged if I accumulated a list of erroneous predictions.
Moreover, I didn't view myself as a future-seer in any professional sense, and I though that predicting should be left to those who were or at least tried to be.
I gave several lectures and workshops at the conference, as well as the keynote address.
I had worked hard at preparing this address, entitling it "Revising Psychic Research Methods and Expectations in the New Age," and even gave the opening statements in German before continuing in English with the aid of a translator.
This was, I thought, and important lecture.
And, indeed, the audience listened attentively.
When the talk was over, I asked for questions.
The hall was silent -- until an elderly woman sitting in the second row stood up and meekly asked: "Herr Schwann, won't you give us at least one prediction?
"Caught very unexpectedly and in clear view between the proverbial rock and a hard place, I began grasping for a diplomatic way to get out of making a prediction.I was quite angry to be put in this position.
But as my anger rose, there was a "noise" or rushing sound around me, and I had a sense of getting "larger.
" Then there was a clarity of some unfamiliar kind, which somehow was liquid -- and in this liquidness what seemed like a thousand pictures flashed through my consciousness.
I had the distinct, lightninglike impression that most people in the audience already knew the future at some "place" deep within them.
And I knew that their conscious minds were disconnected from this deep place.And I knew what they knew, so to speak, and one aspect of this hidden knowledge boiled up into my intellectual consciousness.
Without deciding to do so, I said: "Okay!
You want a prediction?
Here's a prediction.
The Berlin Wall will come down in eighteen to twenty-four months.
" I spat this out intensely and fast, holding on to the podium with both hands.The translator standing by my side looked at me with wide eyes.
My own narrowed.
"Translate it -- translate it NOW!
"She did.
When it appeared that the audience had not heard it correctly, she translated it again somewhat nervously.
The initial silence of the audience was complete.
Then they began to rise to their feet, one by one.
Someone began to clap, and in the next moment the audience lost its composure and became unglued.
Several burst into tears and began to hug each other.
And some rushed to the podium and began to hug me.
"Wait a moment," I tried to yell into the melee.
"It's only a prediction.
"And when it was over, I was absolutely astonished that I had spoken the words in the first place.
"Lord," I thought, "my colleagues back in the States are going to think I've lost it.
And the skeptics will have a field day.
" In April 1988 the Soviet Union and the Berlin Wall seemed destined to ride intact into the twenty-first century.
Once back in New York, I was glad enough to forget that I had made this rash prediction.
And it was doubly rash because I had given it a time-window -- eighteen to twenty-four months as of April 1988.
Anyone could have predicted that the Wall would come down at some indeterminate future time -- and it probably would.
But I had said when.Nineteen months later, the Berlin Wall came down almost overnight, a historic event that caught everyone (including the CIA, MI-5, the Mosad, and even the KGB) by complete surprise, if the media are to be believed.
And I had one of the most rewarding experiences of my life -- lying in bed eating potato chips, watching my prediction come true on real-time television right before my eyes.
Somehow, something in me had spontaneously foreseen a bit of the future, and that part had ultimately manifested itself in the physical universe.How does what begins as a mind-image in someone's inner sensing systems ultimately become or manifest itself as fact in the physical universe?
How is it that our inner sensing systems can transcend the "absolute" linear time of our physical universe?
And why is it that this awesome and important faculty, reported since the dawn of human activity on earth, has the low esteem it does today?What is involved here are mysterious processes that we do not know about or, if we do, understand very well.
Could everyone foresee better if they understood those processes?
And why didn't I realize that I could future-see -- even though I had studied predictions and seers for over thirty years (as part of my overall interest in psychic matters)?I am not, of course, the first, nor will I be the last, to foresee some completely unanticipated bit of the future.
...There is a later section on "the late, great united States?
" where Mr. Swann examines the possibility of the breakup of the United States as a cohesive political entity.
It's been a while since I've read it, so I don't remember the specifics of that prediction very well.
But how many people would ever have thought that the United States would break up (over the next 100 years) soon after the book was published in 1993?
How many people think that the "last remaining superpower" won't last forever today?
I'm sure you'd all agree that more people consider breakup an imminent possibility today than 17 years ago....
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31533404</id>
	<title>The future</title>
	<author>wizardforce</author>
	<datestamp>1268939640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>So what of the future? Another of Bueno de Mesquita's recent predictions addresses the future of climate change negotiations up to 2050. Depressingly, he predicts that although the world will negotiate tougher greenhouse gas reductions than in the Kyoto protocol, in practise these are likely to be abandoned as Brazil, India and China rise in power in relation to the European Union and the US.</p></div></blockquote><p>  No word on what we could do to avoid such a fate.  It would be interesting to see what if anything could be done to avoid a prisoner's dilemma type situation in the case of AGW mitigation.  If the model he's usin could predict such an outcome accurately, it can also predict what could be done to avoid such a negative outcome.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So what of the future ?
Another of Bueno de Mesquita 's recent predictions addresses the future of climate change negotiations up to 2050 .
Depressingly , he predicts that although the world will negotiate tougher greenhouse gas reductions than in the Kyoto protocol , in practise these are likely to be abandoned as Brazil , India and China rise in power in relation to the European Union and the US .
No word on what we could do to avoid such a fate .
It would be interesting to see what if anything could be done to avoid a prisoner 's dilemma type situation in the case of AGW mitigation .
If the model he 's usin could predict such an outcome accurately , it can also predict what could be done to avoid such a negative outcome .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So what of the future?
Another of Bueno de Mesquita's recent predictions addresses the future of climate change negotiations up to 2050.
Depressingly, he predicts that although the world will negotiate tougher greenhouse gas reductions than in the Kyoto protocol, in practise these are likely to be abandoned as Brazil, India and China rise in power in relation to the European Union and the US.
No word on what we could do to avoid such a fate.
It would be interesting to see what if anything could be done to avoid a prisoner's dilemma type situation in the case of AGW mitigation.
If the model he's usin could predict such an outcome accurately, it can also predict what could be done to avoid such a negative outcome.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31533368</id>
	<title>90\% Accuracy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268939160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ok, he claims he has 90\% accuracy.</p><p>What do, you know, independent evaluators of his claims say?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , he claims he has 90 \ % accuracy.What do , you know , independent evaluators of his claims say ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, he claims he has 90\% accuracy.What do, you know, independent evaluators of his claims say?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31535616</id>
	<title>Re:Ahmadinejad</title>
	<author>WillDraven</author>
	<datestamp>1269008700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah picking on him for missing that prediction is like harping on somebody for predicting Nancy Kerrigan would win the 1994 US Skating Championship.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah picking on him for missing that prediction is like harping on somebody for predicting Nancy Kerrigan would win the 1994 US Skating Championship .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah picking on him for missing that prediction is like harping on somebody for predicting Nancy Kerrigan would win the 1994 US Skating Championship.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31533574</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31534608</id>
	<title>Re:Not "the Future"</title>
	<author>mugurel</author>
	<datestamp>1269002460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Right! And if he <i>were</i> to predict the future, we would stop calling it future. What use is a future if you can predict it?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Right !
And if he were to predict the future , we would stop calling it future .
What use is a future if you can predict it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right!
And if he were to predict the future, we would stop calling it future.
What use is a future if you can predict it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31533536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31533320</id>
	<title>If he isn't already rich then he's lying</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268938440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>But then, he knew I'd say this.</htmltext>
<tokenext>But then , he knew I 'd say this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But then, he knew I'd say this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31534092</id>
	<title>Re:When you predict enough, you gotta be right</title>
	<author>lul\_wat</author>
	<datestamp>1268995440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nostradamus has prior art</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nostradamus has prior art</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nostradamus has prior art</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31533376</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31537974</id>
	<title>Butterfly effect</title>
	<author>gmuslera</author>
	<datestamp>1269014940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>He could have 90\% accuracy in pretty close events, but can't predict what will do small groups of people (i.e. 9/11, spanish inquisition) or interferences of events not caused by people (recent eartquakes, katrina, yellowstone caldera, etc). In Foundation you had a (spoiler alert) second foundation to keep things going when "accidents" happen (/spoiler alert), here you only have mass media to try to correct trends in the "right" path. So predicting a month or a year ahead could end having much less than 90\% accuracy.<br><br>And, of course, there is the little factor that is that by knowing the future (specially, knowing what people will do) you can change it (i.e. predicting that some market shares will fall and then selling all of them in a hurry will actually make that shares to rise) and probably isnt the future anymore.</htmltext>
<tokenext>He could have 90 \ % accuracy in pretty close events , but ca n't predict what will do small groups of people ( i.e .
9/11 , spanish inquisition ) or interferences of events not caused by people ( recent eartquakes , katrina , yellowstone caldera , etc ) .
In Foundation you had a ( spoiler alert ) second foundation to keep things going when " accidents " happen ( /spoiler alert ) , here you only have mass media to try to correct trends in the " right " path .
So predicting a month or a year ahead could end having much less than 90 \ % accuracy.And , of course , there is the little factor that is that by knowing the future ( specially , knowing what people will do ) you can change it ( i.e .
predicting that some market shares will fall and then selling all of them in a hurry will actually make that shares to rise ) and probably isnt the future anymore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He could have 90\% accuracy in pretty close events, but can't predict what will do small groups of people (i.e.
9/11, spanish inquisition) or interferences of events not caused by people (recent eartquakes, katrina, yellowstone caldera, etc).
In Foundation you had a (spoiler alert) second foundation to keep things going when "accidents" happen (/spoiler alert), here you only have mass media to try to correct trends in the "right" path.
So predicting a month or a year ahead could end having much less than 90\% accuracy.And, of course, there is the little factor that is that by knowing the future (specially, knowing what people will do) you can change it (i.e.
predicting that some market shares will fall and then selling all of them in a hurry will actually make that shares to rise) and probably isnt the future anymore.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31542250</id>
	<title>Re:Already been done.</title>
	<author>el\_jake</author>
	<datestamp>1269029640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My last visit to Trantor i couldn't find him, I guess he is fictional?</htmltext>
<tokenext>My last visit to Trantor i could n't find him , I guess he is fictional ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My last visit to Trantor i couldn't find him, I guess he is fictional?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31533338</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31533376</id>
	<title>When you predict enough, you gotta be right</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1268939400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At least sometimes. If I make a thousand predictions (the more they contradict each other, the better) and only publish them AFTER the results are in, I can easily claim that I can predict the future. It's a simple magician's trick. Ask a person to think of a number between 1 and 10 (or pick a card, or whatever), then hand him a sealed envelope telling him you knew he'd pick that number (or hand him an envelope containing the card). You couldn't write it down and give him that envelope after he chose, so you have to be able to predict it, else you could not have written it down before the show, right?</p><p>What you don't hand him are the other envelopes containing the other numbers/cards.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At least sometimes .
If I make a thousand predictions ( the more they contradict each other , the better ) and only publish them AFTER the results are in , I can easily claim that I can predict the future .
It 's a simple magician 's trick .
Ask a person to think of a number between 1 and 10 ( or pick a card , or whatever ) , then hand him a sealed envelope telling him you knew he 'd pick that number ( or hand him an envelope containing the card ) .
You could n't write it down and give him that envelope after he chose , so you have to be able to predict it , else you could not have written it down before the show , right ? What you do n't hand him are the other envelopes containing the other numbers/cards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At least sometimes.
If I make a thousand predictions (the more they contradict each other, the better) and only publish them AFTER the results are in, I can easily claim that I can predict the future.
It's a simple magician's trick.
Ask a person to think of a number between 1 and 10 (or pick a card, or whatever), then hand him a sealed envelope telling him you knew he'd pick that number (or hand him an envelope containing the card).
You couldn't write it down and give him that envelope after he chose, so you have to be able to predict it, else you could not have written it down before the show, right?What you don't hand him are the other envelopes containing the other numbers/cards.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31548040</id>
	<title>The Game</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269118680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've just lost the game</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've just lost the game</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've just lost the game</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31533352</id>
	<title>So, if it works, this is like...</title>
	<author>Securityemo</author>
	<datestamp>1268938920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...Psychohistory?</htmltext>
<tokenext>...Psychohistory ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...Psychohistory?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31534966</id>
	<title>NY Times story, Daily Show, TED</title>
	<author>Eharley</author>
	<datestamp>1269006060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Great article last year in the NY Times</p><p><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/16/magazine/16Bruce-t.html?pagewanted=all" title="nytimes.com">http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/16/magazine/16Bruce-t.html?pagewanted=all</a> [nytimes.com]</p><p>Daily Show</p><p><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-september-28-2009/bruce-bueno-de-mesquita" title="thedailyshow.com">http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-september-28-2009/bruce-bueno-de-mesquita</a> [thedailyshow.com]</p><p>TED Talk</p><p><a href="http://www.ted.com/talks/bruce\_bueno\_de\_mesquita\_predicts\_iran\_s\_future.html" title="ted.com">http://www.ted.com/talks/bruce\_bueno\_de\_mesquita\_predicts\_iran\_s\_future.html</a> [ted.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Great article last year in the NY Timeshttp : //www.nytimes.com/2009/08/16/magazine/16Bruce-t.html ? pagewanted = all [ nytimes.com ] Daily Showhttp : //www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-september-28-2009/bruce-bueno-de-mesquita [ thedailyshow.com ] TED Talkhttp : //www.ted.com/talks/bruce \ _bueno \ _de \ _mesquita \ _predicts \ _iran \ _s \ _future.html [ ted.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Great article last year in the NY Timeshttp://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/16/magazine/16Bruce-t.html?pagewanted=all [nytimes.com]Daily Showhttp://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-september-28-2009/bruce-bueno-de-mesquita [thedailyshow.com]TED Talkhttp://www.ted.com/talks/bruce\_bueno\_de\_mesquita\_predicts\_iran\_s\_future.html [ted.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31533342</id>
	<title>B.S.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268938800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In theory, sure, with enough information and accurate models, we can predict things.  But we have neither.  What he's good at is predicting that if he wants better book sales, he should talk himself up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In theory , sure , with enough information and accurate models , we can predict things .
But we have neither .
What he 's good at is predicting that if he wants better book sales , he should talk himself up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In theory, sure, with enough information and accurate models, we can predict things.
But we have neither.
What he's good at is predicting that if he wants better book sales, he should talk himself up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31533542</id>
	<title>in7ormativ3 goatgoat</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268941560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>series of deba<tes GNAA (gAY NIGGER rules are This</htmltext>
<tokenext>series of deba &lt; tes GNAA ( gAY NIGGER rules are This</tokentext>
<sentencetext>series of deba&lt;tes GNAA (gAY NIGGER rules are This</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31533594</id>
	<title>Re:When you predict enough, you gotta be right</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269029160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All your premises -- publish after, only mention positives -- are invalid. He doesn't make that stuff up in his head as he goes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All your premises -- publish after , only mention positives -- are invalid .
He does n't make that stuff up in his head as he goes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All your premises -- publish after, only mention positives -- are invalid.
He doesn't make that stuff up in his head as he goes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31533376</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31534334</id>
	<title>better: predict the opposites</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268998860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you predict the opposites you can be 99\% correct.</p><p>If I write 2 opposite predictions for an event that could really only have 2 outcomes (with a very small chance of something else happening altogether) and then in the future I show everyone one of the two, the one that ended up happening, I'd be almost 100\% successful at predicting 'the future'.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you predict the opposites you can be 99 \ % correct.If I write 2 opposite predictions for an event that could really only have 2 outcomes ( with a very small chance of something else happening altogether ) and then in the future I show everyone one of the two , the one that ended up happening , I 'd be almost 100 \ % successful at predicting 'the future' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you predict the opposites you can be 99\% correct.If I write 2 opposite predictions for an event that could really only have 2 outcomes (with a very small chance of something else happening altogether) and then in the future I show everyone one of the two, the one that ended up happening, I'd be almost 100\% successful at predicting 'the future'.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31533376</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31533414</id>
	<title>Win 7 SP1</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268939700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'll bet he predicted Win 7 SP1.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll bet he predicted Win 7 SP1 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll bet he predicted Win 7 SP1.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31538384</id>
	<title>This is news?</title>
	<author>DaveV1.0</author>
	<datestamp>1269015840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is nothing new in this. People have been using game theory to make predictions for decades.</p><p>In fact, it is one way that Japan screwed up in WW2. They gamed out different strategies for the Battle of Midway during which an admiral arbitrarily lowered Japanese casualties. The results of the changed games showed an easy win for Japan, but when the arbitrary changes were removed, the results of the gaming exercises reflected the Japanese losing the battle.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is nothing new in this .
People have been using game theory to make predictions for decades.In fact , it is one way that Japan screwed up in WW2 .
They gamed out different strategies for the Battle of Midway during which an admiral arbitrarily lowered Japanese casualties .
The results of the changed games showed an easy win for Japan , but when the arbitrary changes were removed , the results of the gaming exercises reflected the Japanese losing the battle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is nothing new in this.
People have been using game theory to make predictions for decades.In fact, it is one way that Japan screwed up in WW2.
They gamed out different strategies for the Battle of Midway during which an admiral arbitrarily lowered Japanese casualties.
The results of the changed games showed an easy win for Japan, but when the arbitrary changes were removed, the results of the gaming exercises reflected the Japanese losing the battle.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31536488</id>
	<title>Didn't read the article?</title>
	<author>plasticsquirrel</author>
	<datestamp>1269011160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>1. He doesn't make predictions himself, the program does, given input data about the players involved.<br>2. The issues being predicted are non-obvious, such as surprise outcomes in Indian politics, made for the CIA.<br>3. The issues are not arbitrary, but rather limited to rational decisions made by a number of people, but this may be in the hundreds.<br> <br>This is really about going beyond educated guessing, and the number of factors that a human mind could consider. It is about predicting group behavior, and relies on large amounts of accurate input data. It is not something that can be gleaned just from watching the news.<br> <br>It's obvious from your post that you didn't even bother to glean the article in question, so I shouldn't have expected much. How you got "5 insightful" is beyond me, but I assume it is due to the "know-it-all" factor on Slashdot, where any geek expressing the popular opinion can remain ignorant and feed off popular sentiments. In some cases this can work, and comments can still be insightful and relevant, but an article such as this is not one of those cases. Your comment might as well be addressing Uri Geller or a local fortune teller. It has nothing to do with this methodology or its underlying ideas, which are more related to mathematics and sociology.</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
He does n't make predictions himself , the program does , given input data about the players involved.2 .
The issues being predicted are non-obvious , such as surprise outcomes in Indian politics , made for the CIA.3 .
The issues are not arbitrary , but rather limited to rational decisions made by a number of people , but this may be in the hundreds .
This is really about going beyond educated guessing , and the number of factors that a human mind could consider .
It is about predicting group behavior , and relies on large amounts of accurate input data .
It is not something that can be gleaned just from watching the news .
It 's obvious from your post that you did n't even bother to glean the article in question , so I should n't have expected much .
How you got " 5 insightful " is beyond me , but I assume it is due to the " know-it-all " factor on Slashdot , where any geek expressing the popular opinion can remain ignorant and feed off popular sentiments .
In some cases this can work , and comments can still be insightful and relevant , but an article such as this is not one of those cases .
Your comment might as well be addressing Uri Geller or a local fortune teller .
It has nothing to do with this methodology or its underlying ideas , which are more related to mathematics and sociology .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
He doesn't make predictions himself, the program does, given input data about the players involved.2.
The issues being predicted are non-obvious, such as surprise outcomes in Indian politics, made for the CIA.3.
The issues are not arbitrary, but rather limited to rational decisions made by a number of people, but this may be in the hundreds.
This is really about going beyond educated guessing, and the number of factors that a human mind could consider.
It is about predicting group behavior, and relies on large amounts of accurate input data.
It is not something that can be gleaned just from watching the news.
It's obvious from your post that you didn't even bother to glean the article in question, so I shouldn't have expected much.
How you got "5 insightful" is beyond me, but I assume it is due to the "know-it-all" factor on Slashdot, where any geek expressing the popular opinion can remain ignorant and feed off popular sentiments.
In some cases this can work, and comments can still be insightful and relevant, but an article such as this is not one of those cases.
Your comment might as well be addressing Uri Geller or a local fortune teller.
It has nothing to do with this methodology or its underlying ideas, which are more related to mathematics and sociology.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31533748</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31534262</id>
	<title>Oh ? Prediction beats logic now?</title>
	<author>freaker\_TuC</author>
	<datestamp>1268998080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apparantly Bruce seems to use logic to predict<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... so do predictions beat logic now ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apparantly Bruce seems to use logic to predict ... so do predictions beat logic now ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apparantly Bruce seems to use logic to predict ... so do predictions beat logic now ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31533540</id>
	<title>I predict...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268941500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I predict that the people who pay attention to geo-politics and have a decent grasp of historical parallels can make an awful lot of money accurately forcasting the future by pretending to rely on mysterious and magical/scientific means.</p><p>We've never seen this sort of thing in history *cough cough astrology cough cough* have we?</p><p>Care to buy my "game theory"? I can give you 90\% accuracy, just ask my "independant" buddies at the CIA... after all, what do they know about future political events?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I predict that the people who pay attention to geo-politics and have a decent grasp of historical parallels can make an awful lot of money accurately forcasting the future by pretending to rely on mysterious and magical/scientific means.We 've never seen this sort of thing in history * cough cough astrology cough cough * have we ? Care to buy my " game theory " ?
I can give you 90 \ % accuracy , just ask my " independant " buddies at the CIA... after all , what do they know about future political events ?
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I predict that the people who pay attention to geo-politics and have a decent grasp of historical parallels can make an awful lot of money accurately forcasting the future by pretending to rely on mysterious and magical/scientific means.We've never seen this sort of thing in history *cough cough astrology cough cough* have we?Care to buy my "game theory"?
I can give you 90\% accuracy, just ask my "independant" buddies at the CIA... after all, what do they know about future political events?
;)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31533792</id>
	<title>yuo :fa$il it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268990400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>YOUR SPARE TIME if desir3d, we Create, manuf"acture about half of the enjoy the loud</htmltext>
<tokenext>YOUR SPARE TIME if desir3d , we Create , manuf " acture about half of the enjoy the loud</tokentext>
<sentencetext>YOUR SPARE TIME if desir3d, we Create, manuf"acture about half of the enjoy the loud</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31533508</id>
	<title>Spanish-speaking cannibals</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268941020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I predict that if Bruce ever get eaten by cannibals, he would taste good barbecued with mesquite.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I predict that if Bruce ever get eaten by cannibals , he would taste good barbecued with mesquite .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I predict that if Bruce ever get eaten by cannibals, he would taste good barbecued with mesquite.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31533656</id>
	<title>Re:Already been done.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269030480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Hari Seldon invented psychohistory.</p></div><p>Sounds more like the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Pierre\_Van\_Rossem" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Moneytron</a> [wikipedia.org] in the <a href="http://www.ivarhagendoorn.com/blog/finance-economics/beating-the-market-with-mathematics" title="ivarhagendoorn.com" rel="nofollow">1980s</a> [ivarhagendoorn.com].</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hari Seldon invented psychohistory.Sounds more like the Moneytron [ wikipedia.org ] in the 1980s [ ivarhagendoorn.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hari Seldon invented psychohistory.Sounds more like the Moneytron [wikipedia.org] in the 1980s [ivarhagendoorn.com].
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31533338</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31536220</id>
	<title>Re:What's he predicted?</title>
	<author>lordlod</author>
	<datestamp>1269010380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>
From TFA "These [predictions] include whether or not North Korea's supreme leader, Kim Jong II, would dismantle his nation's nuclear arsenal"  How stupid do you have to be to believe that he "predicted" this?  Everyone and their fucking aunt is watching the news, everyone is reporting on it, the government is doing fucking insane amounts of research and analysis as to what foreign leaders' views are regarding nuclear weapons.  It's not that hard to make a guess as to what's going to happen when you have that much information available to you.</p></div><p>
It's easy to write someone off to match your view but it's worth looking at what he actually does and the level of detail he goes into.</p><p>Another example from his blog was looking at the nuclear situation in Iran, very similar to North Korea.  He looks at the latest offering from the international community and predicts if it will be accepted or not.  He predicts that it won't be accepted but he goes further and explains why, he also explains the kind of offer that would be accepted.  Now the won't be accepted view is the common one (though clearly someone making the offer thought it might be accepted), but it's the level of detail and analysis that differentiates him.</p><p>Predicting international relations is a common field but 90\% is a very good hit rate.  Classical IR theory is quite flawed and wouldn't be nearly that successful.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From TFA " These [ predictions ] include whether or not North Korea 's supreme leader , Kim Jong II , would dismantle his nation 's nuclear arsenal " How stupid do you have to be to believe that he " predicted " this ?
Everyone and their fucking aunt is watching the news , everyone is reporting on it , the government is doing fucking insane amounts of research and analysis as to what foreign leaders ' views are regarding nuclear weapons .
It 's not that hard to make a guess as to what 's going to happen when you have that much information available to you .
It 's easy to write someone off to match your view but it 's worth looking at what he actually does and the level of detail he goes into.Another example from his blog was looking at the nuclear situation in Iran , very similar to North Korea .
He looks at the latest offering from the international community and predicts if it will be accepted or not .
He predicts that it wo n't be accepted but he goes further and explains why , he also explains the kind of offer that would be accepted .
Now the wo n't be accepted view is the common one ( though clearly someone making the offer thought it might be accepted ) , but it 's the level of detail and analysis that differentiates him.Predicting international relations is a common field but 90 \ % is a very good hit rate .
Classical IR theory is quite flawed and would n't be nearly that successful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
From TFA "These [predictions] include whether or not North Korea's supreme leader, Kim Jong II, would dismantle his nation's nuclear arsenal"  How stupid do you have to be to believe that he "predicted" this?
Everyone and their fucking aunt is watching the news, everyone is reporting on it, the government is doing fucking insane amounts of research and analysis as to what foreign leaders' views are regarding nuclear weapons.
It's not that hard to make a guess as to what's going to happen when you have that much information available to you.
It's easy to write someone off to match your view but it's worth looking at what he actually does and the level of detail he goes into.Another example from his blog was looking at the nuclear situation in Iran, very similar to North Korea.
He looks at the latest offering from the international community and predicts if it will be accepted or not.
He predicts that it won't be accepted but he goes further and explains why, he also explains the kind of offer that would be accepted.
Now the won't be accepted view is the common one (though clearly someone making the offer thought it might be accepted), but it's the level of detail and analysis that differentiates him.Predicting international relations is a common field but 90\% is a very good hit rate.
Classical IR theory is quite flawed and wouldn't be nearly that successful.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31533748</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31534562</id>
	<title>Bible Predictions</title>
	<author>allcaps</author>
	<datestamp>1269001740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This seems a lot like the Bible Code by Michael Drosnin.  Turned out his method could be used to predict famous assassinations from the pages of Moby Dick (something Michael said would be silly).

<a href="http://cs.anu.edu.au/~bdm/dilugim/moby.html" title="anu.edu.au" rel="nofollow">http://cs.anu.edu.au/~bdm/dilugim/moby.html</a> [anu.edu.au]</htmltext>
<tokenext>This seems a lot like the Bible Code by Michael Drosnin .
Turned out his method could be used to predict famous assassinations from the pages of Moby Dick ( something Michael said would be silly ) .
http : //cs.anu.edu.au/ ~ bdm/dilugim/moby.html [ anu.edu.au ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This seems a lot like the Bible Code by Michael Drosnin.
Turned out his method could be used to predict famous assassinations from the pages of Moby Dick (something Michael said would be silly).
http://cs.anu.edu.au/~bdm/dilugim/moby.html [anu.edu.au]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31533394</id>
	<title>I predict</title>
	<author>Crash McBang</author>
	<datestamp>1268939580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That his 90\% hit rate will shrink now that he has the Internetz attention.</p><p>Bet he didn't predict *that*...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That his 90 \ % hit rate will shrink now that he has the Internetz attention.Bet he did n't predict * that * .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That his 90\% hit rate will shrink now that he has the Internetz attention.Bet he didn't predict *that*...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31533460</id>
	<title>Re:The future</title>
	<author>red\_blue\_yellow</author>
	<datestamp>1268940360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I do think the Prisoner's Dilemma is a very good model for the global warming situation.  If you think of it strictly in those terms, the only way to change the Nash equilibrium is to alter the benefits of the different strategies for all players.  This could either mean some type of guaranteed punishment for defectors or some type of guaranteed benefit for cooperators.  I think most people instinctively realize this -- but enforcing the benefits/penalties on a global scale is the difficult part.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do think the Prisoner 's Dilemma is a very good model for the global warming situation .
If you think of it strictly in those terms , the only way to change the Nash equilibrium is to alter the benefits of the different strategies for all players .
This could either mean some type of guaranteed punishment for defectors or some type of guaranteed benefit for cooperators .
I think most people instinctively realize this -- but enforcing the benefits/penalties on a global scale is the difficult part .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I do think the Prisoner's Dilemma is a very good model for the global warming situation.
If you think of it strictly in those terms, the only way to change the Nash equilibrium is to alter the benefits of the different strategies for all players.
This could either mean some type of guaranteed punishment for defectors or some type of guaranteed benefit for cooperators.
I think most people instinctively realize this -- but enforcing the benefits/penalties on a global scale is the difficult part.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31533404</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31533498</id>
	<title>Re:If he isn't already rich then he's lying</title>
	<author>francium de neobie</author>
	<datestamp>1268940960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Agreed. Anyone who can predict the stock market with 90\% accuracy should be able to make himself a billion dollars in a few months.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed .
Anyone who can predict the stock market with 90 \ % accuracy should be able to make himself a billion dollars in a few months .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed.
Anyone who can predict the stock market with 90\% accuracy should be able to make himself a billion dollars in a few months.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31533320</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31538724</id>
	<title>Re:90\% Accuracy</title>
	<author>SnarfQuest</author>
	<datestamp>1269016740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You mean, like the way the National Enquirer rates the psycics as being over 90\% accurate, but if you get the Prediction issue from the previous year, only the obvious things came true. You know, like "bat boy will devour a large midwest town". He does that EVERY year. It's like predicting 5 o'clock.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You mean , like the way the National Enquirer rates the psycics as being over 90 \ % accurate , but if you get the Prediction issue from the previous year , only the obvious things came true .
You know , like " bat boy will devour a large midwest town " .
He does that EVERY year .
It 's like predicting 5 o'clock .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mean, like the way the National Enquirer rates the psycics as being over 90\% accurate, but if you get the Prediction issue from the previous year, only the obvious things came true.
You know, like "bat boy will devour a large midwest town".
He does that EVERY year.
It's like predicting 5 o'clock.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31533368</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31533618</id>
	<title>Re:When you predict enough, you gotta be right</title>
	<author>madpansy</author>
	<datestamp>1269029580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sports picks hotlines also claim to predict the future, and they have to publish well before the results so their customers can place their bets. It's just too bad that every week half of their free picks for first timers are wrong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sports picks hotlines also claim to predict the future , and they have to publish well before the results so their customers can place their bets .
It 's just too bad that every week half of their free picks for first timers are wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sports picks hotlines also claim to predict the future, and they have to publish well before the results so their customers can place their bets.
It's just too bad that every week half of their free picks for first timers are wrong.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31533376</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31533430</id>
	<title>Re:90\% Accuracy</title>
	<author>wizardforce</author>
	<datestamp>1268939940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>What do, you know, independent evaluators of his claims say?</p></div></blockquote><p> Well he hasn't submitted anything about his computer model to peer review so I'd imagine that it would be something along the lines of show us how or it didn't happen.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What do , you know , independent evaluators of his claims say ?
Well he has n't submitted anything about his computer model to peer review so I 'd imagine that it would be something along the lines of show us how or it did n't happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What do, you know, independent evaluators of his claims say?
Well he hasn't submitted anything about his computer model to peer review so I'd imagine that it would be something along the lines of show us how or it didn't happen.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31533368</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31533748</id>
	<title>What's he predicted?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268989320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can believe a 90\% hit rate.   I can predict the future, and so can you, with 90\% accuracy.  See, if you don't claim to be able to predict EVERYTHING then you can easily "predict" obvious things.<br><br>I predict that tomorrow someone will die in the world.<br>I predict that tomorrow at least one person will spend $100 on a TV somewhere in the US.<br>I predict that tomorrow the temperature will be higher than 32 deg F in California.<br><br>Tomorrow look up these details and see how many I get right.  I CAN PREDICT THE FUTURE!!<br><br>This guy claims to be able to predict "only certain things" which really means he's predicting things obvious even if it's not obvious that they're obvious.   For example, he claims to be able to predict foreign policy.  Did he predict foreign policy, or did he just watch the news and make some predictions based off of what all the political analysts are saying?<br><br>From TFA "These [predictions] include whether or not North Korea's supreme leader, Kim Jong II, would dismantle his nation's nuclear arsenal"  How stupid do you have to be to believe that he "predicted" this?  Everyone and their fucking aunt is watching the news, everyone is reporting on it, the government is doing fucking insane amounts of research and analysis as to what foreign leaders' views are regarding nuclear weapons.  It's not that hard to make a guess as to what's going to happen when you have that much information available to you.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I can believe a 90 \ % hit rate .
I can predict the future , and so can you , with 90 \ % accuracy .
See , if you do n't claim to be able to predict EVERYTHING then you can easily " predict " obvious things.I predict that tomorrow someone will die in the world.I predict that tomorrow at least one person will spend $ 100 on a TV somewhere in the US.I predict that tomorrow the temperature will be higher than 32 deg F in California.Tomorrow look up these details and see how many I get right .
I CAN PREDICT THE FUTURE !
! This guy claims to be able to predict " only certain things " which really means he 's predicting things obvious even if it 's not obvious that they 're obvious .
For example , he claims to be able to predict foreign policy .
Did he predict foreign policy , or did he just watch the news and make some predictions based off of what all the political analysts are saying ? From TFA " These [ predictions ] include whether or not North Korea 's supreme leader , Kim Jong II , would dismantle his nation 's nuclear arsenal " How stupid do you have to be to believe that he " predicted " this ?
Everyone and their fucking aunt is watching the news , everyone is reporting on it , the government is doing fucking insane amounts of research and analysis as to what foreign leaders ' views are regarding nuclear weapons .
It 's not that hard to make a guess as to what 's going to happen when you have that much information available to you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can believe a 90\% hit rate.
I can predict the future, and so can you, with 90\% accuracy.
See, if you don't claim to be able to predict EVERYTHING then you can easily "predict" obvious things.I predict that tomorrow someone will die in the world.I predict that tomorrow at least one person will spend $100 on a TV somewhere in the US.I predict that tomorrow the temperature will be higher than 32 deg F in California.Tomorrow look up these details and see how many I get right.
I CAN PREDICT THE FUTURE!
!This guy claims to be able to predict "only certain things" which really means he's predicting things obvious even if it's not obvious that they're obvious.
For example, he claims to be able to predict foreign policy.
Did he predict foreign policy, or did he just watch the news and make some predictions based off of what all the political analysts are saying?From TFA "These [predictions] include whether or not North Korea's supreme leader, Kim Jong II, would dismantle his nation's nuclear arsenal"  How stupid do you have to be to believe that he "predicted" this?
Everyone and their fucking aunt is watching the news, everyone is reporting on it, the government is doing fucking insane amounts of research and analysis as to what foreign leaders' views are regarding nuclear weapons.
It's not that hard to make a guess as to what's going to happen when you have that much information available to you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31539814</id>
	<title>Sorcery!</title>
	<author>codepigeon</author>
	<datestamp>1269020280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They better not try this in Saudi Arabia. They could end up on death row.


<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/03/19/saudi.arabia.sorcery/index.html?hpt=T2" title="cnn.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/03/19/saudi.arabia.sorcery/index.html?hpt=T2</a> [cnn.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>They better not try this in Saudi Arabia .
They could end up on death row .
http : //www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/03/19/saudi.arabia.sorcery/index.html ? hpt = T2 [ cnn.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They better not try this in Saudi Arabia.
They could end up on death row.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/03/19/saudi.arabia.sorcery/index.html?hpt=T2 [cnn.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31533392</id>
	<title>Re:If he isn't already rich then he's lying</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268939520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>it's all government of the 1st world who have machine to manipulate mind.<br>if you manipulate two powns, thew will thought that each other is the manipulator.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>it 's all government of the 1st world who have machine to manipulate mind.if you manipulate two powns , thew will thought that each other is the manipulator .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it's all government of the 1st world who have machine to manipulate mind.if you manipulate two powns, thew will thought that each other is the manipulator.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31533320</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31533338</id>
	<title>Already been done.</title>
	<author>dynamo52</author>
	<datestamp>1268938740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hari Seldon invented psychohistory.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hari Seldon invented psychohistory .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hari Seldon invented psychohistory.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31541494</id>
	<title>Re:Bruce Bueno de Mesquita predicted this first po</title>
	<author>pha7boy</author>
	<datestamp>1269026400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>he also predicted, in one of his early articles, that "countries go to war if they think they can win." Score 1 for predictive theories.</htmltext>
<tokenext>he also predicted , in one of his early articles , that " countries go to war if they think they can win .
" Score 1 for predictive theories .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>he also predicted, in one of his early articles, that "countries go to war if they think they can win.
" Score 1 for predictive theories.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31533314</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31533314</id>
	<title>Bruce Bueno de Mesquita predicted this first post.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268938260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>..................what an amazing individual!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>..................what an amazing individual !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>..................what an amazing individual!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31534918</id>
	<title>Re:This method is NOT 'future seeing'</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269005580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Very often "unthinkable" is the same thing as "unaware."  In other words you just simply lack all the information.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Very often " unthinkable " is the same thing as " unaware .
" In other words you just simply lack all the information .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Very often "unthinkable" is the same thing as "unaware.
"  In other words you just simply lack all the information.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31533844</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31535696</id>
	<title>Re:If he isn't already rich then he's lying</title>
	<author>jandersen</author>
	<datestamp>1269008880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why would you assume that the first thing anybody with a good idea would do, is to go and make money from it? Things like altruism and curiosity for its own sake are arguably some of the traits that make humans "human"; and there are many things that are much more interesting and satisfying than money.</p><p>That aside, the purpose of game theory as such is to predict the behaviour of systems, so it isn't so surprising that they achieve some success. The big problem, as far as I can see, is to create a model that is realistic enough, pretty much like when you predict the weather, although the method is different. And then you have to know which questions to ask, since the answer may well be something like "42".</p><p>Prediction is not actually that difficult in itself; you do it every day when you say things like "Tomorrow I will go to a meeting" - and sure enough, next day you do go to a meeting. This is trivial, of course, but that <b>is</b> all there is to it; the rest is down to how many data you have and whether you are able to take it all into account.</p><p>And that, funny enough, is why using a techique like Tarot or I Ching can sometimes be amazingly effective. When you lay out Tarot cards, it is of course entirely random, but that is exactly why it works; because when you try to think about the consequences of some important problem, you are likely focusing too strongly on only a part of the available data, and trying to interpret the random set of images you've laid out breaks you out of the box you have created for yourself - it is, in effect, a form of brainstorming.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would you assume that the first thing anybody with a good idea would do , is to go and make money from it ?
Things like altruism and curiosity for its own sake are arguably some of the traits that make humans " human " ; and there are many things that are much more interesting and satisfying than money.That aside , the purpose of game theory as such is to predict the behaviour of systems , so it is n't so surprising that they achieve some success .
The big problem , as far as I can see , is to create a model that is realistic enough , pretty much like when you predict the weather , although the method is different .
And then you have to know which questions to ask , since the answer may well be something like " 42 " .Prediction is not actually that difficult in itself ; you do it every day when you say things like " Tomorrow I will go to a meeting " - and sure enough , next day you do go to a meeting .
This is trivial , of course , but that is all there is to it ; the rest is down to how many data you have and whether you are able to take it all into account.And that , funny enough , is why using a techique like Tarot or I Ching can sometimes be amazingly effective .
When you lay out Tarot cards , it is of course entirely random , but that is exactly why it works ; because when you try to think about the consequences of some important problem , you are likely focusing too strongly on only a part of the available data , and trying to interpret the random set of images you 've laid out breaks you out of the box you have created for yourself - it is , in effect , a form of brainstorming .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why would you assume that the first thing anybody with a good idea would do, is to go and make money from it?
Things like altruism and curiosity for its own sake are arguably some of the traits that make humans "human"; and there are many things that are much more interesting and satisfying than money.That aside, the purpose of game theory as such is to predict the behaviour of systems, so it isn't so surprising that they achieve some success.
The big problem, as far as I can see, is to create a model that is realistic enough, pretty much like when you predict the weather, although the method is different.
And then you have to know which questions to ask, since the answer may well be something like "42".Prediction is not actually that difficult in itself; you do it every day when you say things like "Tomorrow I will go to a meeting" - and sure enough, next day you do go to a meeting.
This is trivial, of course, but that is all there is to it; the rest is down to how many data you have and whether you are able to take it all into account.And that, funny enough, is why using a techique like Tarot or I Ching can sometimes be amazingly effective.
When you lay out Tarot cards, it is of course entirely random, but that is exactly why it works; because when you try to think about the consequences of some important problem, you are likely focusing too strongly on only a part of the available data, and trying to interpret the random set of images you've laid out breaks you out of the box you have created for yourself - it is, in effect, a form of brainstorming.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31533320</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_2353231_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31536220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31533748
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_2353231_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31541494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31533314
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_2353231_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31533430
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31533368
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_2353231_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31533618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31533376
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_2353231_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31542250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31533338
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_2353231_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31534918
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31533844
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_2353231_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31533392
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31533320
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_2353231_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31538724
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31533368
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_2353231_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31535696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31533320
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_2353231_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31536488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31533748
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_2353231_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31534608
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31533536
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_2353231_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31533498
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31533320
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_2353231_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31535910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31533338
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_2353231_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31536638
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31533338
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_2353231_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31534092
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31533376
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_2353231_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31535616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31533574
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31533444
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_2353231_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31534334
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31533376
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_2353231_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31537588
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31533338
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_2353231_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31533460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31533404
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_2353231_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31533656
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31533338
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_2353231_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31533594
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31533376
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_18_2353231.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31533536
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31534608
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_18_2353231.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31533338
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31533656
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31536638
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31542250
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31535910
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31537588
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_18_2353231.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31533404
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31533460
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_18_2353231.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31533320
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31535696
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31533392
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31533498
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_18_2353231.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31533314
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31541494
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_18_2353231.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31533748
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31536220
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31536488
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_18_2353231.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31533444
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31533574
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31535616
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_18_2353231.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31533368
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31538724
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31533430
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_18_2353231.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31533376
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31534334
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31534092
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31533594
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31533618
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_18_2353231.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31533844
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2353231.31534918
</commentlist>
</conversation>
