Posted on 07/13/2006 2:32:28 PM PDT by RDTF
more to follow
LoL!
"Israel said that at least one of the missiles that hit Haifa Thursday was fired by members of the Iranian Guard. These Iranian Guard units are stationed in Southern Lebanon."
http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/16097.html
Something like "2006 Israel War [LIVE THREAD]"?
I can understand the emotion behind "nuke em"...that's how I FEEL too. But..the likelihood of it happening? Small. (IMO)
Did the catch the part where Larry said, "You guys had your chance and you blew it?" NOT!!!!
and Syria, and North Korea, and China, and Indonesia
If we had a dedicated thread it would be hard to know where to jump in...and to keep up with the breaking news.
Stories like this are tricky to follow- there are a LOT of threads today..but if you do a search on Israel for a keyword...you'll find em all.
ROFL!!!!!
that guy on CNN/Larry king just said that!
(Capt Eric Snyder, IDF spokesman)
I heard Geraldo say earlier that he may be heading to Lebanon.....lol
I would expect this to be bigger news if true.
seared in your memory? :)
If a 20-something, attractive blonde girl ends up dying in this, expect Great van Susteren to rush over there too.
LOL! You got that right!
</DarkSarcasm>
Creating a pretend game whose rules prove your point doesn't imply that your point is valid. It is akin to saying that 2^2 = 2 + 2, so therefore X^Y = X+Y.
This can work really well in a simple game we create solely for the purpose of proving it works well, but my point is that real-world "games," like international military conflict, are simply not as well-defined as everyone makes them out to be, and they are in fact a multiple series of games.
You cannot create a generally applicable theory by creating imaginary payouts and showing that game theory holds for these payouts.
Game theory cannot deal with situations where each party at any step in a game has multiple decisions, and subsequently optimal decisions will depend on the tactic chosen both in previous games, and the tactics expected to be chosen in future games. Game theorists have a hard enough time dealing with single games with multiple competitors. The more dimensions you add to your decision matrix, the less likely it becomes that a game theoretic approach would be optimal.
For instance, what if, in a series of games like the one you showed, I can lose out on any single game up to the Nth game, but push my adversary to become more and more irrational, until he is destroyed, and I get $1000 in every subsequent game, instead of $500, because I have no more competitors? Or I can get him to start behaving in such a way that I can get $750 and he keeps $250? If the game is actually a series of games, like in real life, and the rules and expected payouts are not well-defined, I may be able to do something like that.
Natalie is in Beirut? How did she get there from Aruba?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.