Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [bafuture] Zero-sum situations and government

Expand Messages
  • John Abbe
    Response to wayne s three points, then some bits related to arc of history First: ... Almost a reasonable definition of zero-sum. ... Makes sense to me. ...
    Message 1 of 10 , Oct 31, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Response to wayne's three points, then some bits related to 'arc of history'

      First:

      At 12:55 PM -0700 2003-09-26, wayne radinsky wrote:
      > with fixed limits, almost every transaction becomes
      > zero-sum: win-lose

      Almost a reasonable definition of zero-sum.

      Second:

      > when people live in a
      > zero-sum context, they will generate a zero-sum government.
      > Sensing the rules of the game, they will attempt to put
      > themselves on the winning side by creating powerful
      > structures to ensure that others lose.

      Makes sense to me.

      Third:

      > a zero-sum
      > government will probably be run by people who are nasty,
      > brutish, anti-change, and thus anti-innovation.

      I don't know about this. I've played a lot of zero-sum games -- board
      & card games -- and i find a kind of detachment and clarity, or even
      equanimity in it, which i learned, to enjoy the all out conflict of
      the game.

      But i do see how zero-sum games can easily be used to train people to
      be brutish, anti-change, and anti-innovation. And i wouldn't enjoy
      being one of the people now spear-heading non-zero-sum thinking in
      the government. Uphill i imagine...

      At 12:55 PM -0700 2003-09-26, wayne radinsky wrote:
      >--- Chris Phoenix <cphoenix@...> wrote:
      >> Is there an observable moral arc to history?
      >
      >I tend to be skeptical, but Robert Wright obviously thinks
      >there is. John Smart also thinks so. I suppose it depends
      >on what you measure. Human population has increased, right?
      >Life expectancy has increased, right? Discrimination
      >against race/ethnicity has decreased, right? Therefore life
      >must be happier, more inclusive and thus more moral, right?
      >
      >For contradicting evidence, I ask, what about the mass
      >extinction currently taking place -- a mass extinction
      >caused by the human species? Population, life expectancy
      >and greater inclusiveness appear to apply only to humans.
      >Is that moral? It depends on how you define "morality"
      >doesn't it?

      Even among humans, we are seeing a mass extinction of cultures.

      The larger "arc" i see is more of a fork -- Many 1000s of years ago
      some humans started believing things about people that supported
      survival in competition between societies with larger populations and
      more hierarchical social structures that came with domestication and
      settlement. These ideas have spread to nearly every human brain on
      the planet in the intervening years.

      > > If so, is it a historical accident, or was it inevitable?
      >> What factors in the near future could slow our rate of
      >> (moral, technological, governmental) improvement? What
      > > degree of slowing would be sufficient to make us regress
      >> into zero-sum stagnation? Could zero-sum stagnation be
      >> stable with a population of six billion, or would a crash
      > > be inevitable?

      I believe stagnation even more than singularity is a question not of
      technology but of morality.

      >I think that short term abberations can happen randomly,
      >but whatever the long term trend is, it's inevitable. This
      >is just an opinion -- I believe evolution has a long term
      >direction that emerges out of billions of random
      >interactions. I don't really know what direction the
      >long-term trend will take once technologies like
      >neurotechnology, nanotechnology, robotics & AI take off.
      >Anyway, you asked :)

      I can't see any reason why our outcome wouldn't be undetermined, and
      even be in part dependent on what we do (unfortunately no one has
      left us a manual). Will we wipe ourselves out, or last long enough to
      stagnate or singularitize? If we do the latter, what kind of
      singularity will we be? (the question that interests me most) What if
      anything will happen to those left behind?

      Life,
      John
      --
      All you /\/\ John Abbe "Faith is not belief without proof,
      need \ / CatHerder but trust without reservation."
      is... \/ http://ourpla.net/john/ --Elton Trueblood
    • Joschka Fisher
      Still we have a problem in definitions and assumptions about Zero-Sum You guys seem to mean a game where only one of the players wins. Yet the net sum of
      Message 2 of 10 , Nov 1, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        Still we have a problem in definitions and assumptions
        about "Zero-Sum"

        You guys seem to mean a game where only one of the
        players wins. Yet the net sum of "winnables" is zero.

        However when we look at the definition of Zero-Sum:
        There are in actuality to types of games it actually
        applies to.

        Oxford English says:
        1d; zero-sum a., in the theory of games, applied to a
        game in which the sum of the winnings of all the
        players is always zero; also transf., denoting any
        situation in which advantage to one participant
        necessarily leads to disadvantage to one or more of
        the others

        and this entry definitively states:
        http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/ZESUGAM.html

        Now: I guess you guys mean a "game" where the pool of
        winniables is fixed. Von Neuman came up with this and
        did well with zero-sum games but lousy with non-zero
        sum games...It was John Nash who broke the camel with
        non-zero sum games and this is what Economist seem
        much more interested in since...their more realistic
        situations!!!!

        Zero-Sum government? How on Earth can you possibly?
        What's the prize that changes in distribution? Please
        don't say power?...It was another mathematician who
        showed how easy it is to overthrow a Democracy.

        I think of zero sum ( in the former ) as a card game
        where the winnings are say $40,000. At the end of the
        game one winner ( a change of distribution assuming no
        cheating or complicity, of course ). In provincial
        competitions as a beauty contest...uh yea one winner.

        But in the example given in the 2nd link, Chess only
        one winner? I don't agree. Ever hear of a Stalemate?


        Traditionally chess is played against a clock. I can
        have excellent position, be about to put you in a
        checkmate or an infinite check situation....if the
        clock falls I loose. For that one game it's zero-sum.
        Over a measurment of 7 games...I may demonstrate
        myself the better player by winning the majority of
        them. The shortsightedness of measuring over too
        short an interval as John Nash lost to his opponnent
        in the "Go" game in the movie...is a misunderstanding
        of the system and the players and designed for
        immediate gain-say.

        You application of Zero-Sum to the situations talked
        about seem undefined and unrealistic ( both of you! )
        Some futher explanation on your parts are surely
        needed here.

        joschka fischer ( joseph anderson )




        --- John Abbe <johnca@...> a écrit : >
        Response to wayne's three points, then some bits
        > related to 'arc of history'
        >
        > First:
        >
        > At 12:55 PM -0700 2003-09-26, wayne radinsky wrote:
        > > with fixed limits, almost every transaction
        > becomes
        > > zero-sum: win-lose
        >
        > Almost a reasonable definition of zero-sum.
        >
        > Second:
        >
        > > when people live in a
        > > zero-sum context, they will generate a zero-sum
        > government.
        > > Sensing the rules of the game, they will attempt
        > to put
        > > themselves on the winning side by creating
        > powerful
        > > structures to ensure that others lose.
        >
        > Makes sense to me.
        >
        > Third:
        >
        > > a zero-sum
        > > government will probably be run by people who are
        > nasty,
        > > brutish, anti-change, and thus anti-innovation.
        >
        > I don't know about this. I've played a lot of
        > zero-sum games -- board
        > & card games -- and i find a kind of detachment and
        > clarity, or even
        > equanimity in it, which i learned, to enjoy the all
        > out conflict of
        > the game.
        >
        > But i do see how zero-sum games can easily be used
        > to train people to
        > be brutish, anti-change, and anti-innovation. And i
        > wouldn't enjoy
        > being one of the people now spear-heading
        > non-zero-sum thinking in
        > the government. Uphill i imagine...
        >
        > At 12:55 PM -0700 2003-09-26, wayne radinsky wrote:
        > >--- Chris Phoenix <cphoenix@...> wrote:
        > >> Is there an observable moral arc to history?
        > >
        > >I tend to be skeptical, but Robert Wright obviously
        > thinks
        > >there is. John Smart also thinks so. I suppose it
        > depends
        > >on what you measure. Human population has
        > increased, right?
        > >Life expectancy has increased, right?
        > Discrimination
        > >against race/ethnicity has decreased, right?
        > Therefore life
        > >must be happier, more inclusive and thus more
        > moral, right?
        > >
        > >For contradicting evidence, I ask, what about the
        > mass
        > >extinction currently taking place -- a mass
        > extinction
        > >caused by the human species? Population, life
        > expectancy
        > >and greater inclusiveness appear to apply only to
        > humans.
        > >Is that moral? It depends on how you define
        > "morality"
        > >doesn't it?
        >
        > Even among humans, we are seeing a mass extinction
        > of cultures.
        >
        > The larger "arc" i see is more of a fork -- Many
        > 1000s of years ago
        > some humans started believing things about people
        > that supported
        > survival in competition between societies with
        > larger populations and
        > more hierarchical social structures that came with
        > domestication and
        > settlement. These ideas have spread to nearly every
        > human brain on
        > the planet in the intervening years.
        >
        > > > If so, is it a historical accident, or was it
        > inevitable?
        > >> What factors in the near future could slow our
        > rate of
        > >> (moral, technological, governmental)
        > improvement? What
        > > > degree of slowing would be sufficient to make
        > us regress
        > >> into zero-sum stagnation? Could zero-sum
        > stagnation be
        > >> stable with a population of six billion, or
        > would a crash
        > > > be inevitable?
        >
        > I believe stagnation even more than singularity is a
        > question not of
        > technology but of morality.
        >
        > >I think that short term abberations can happen
        > randomly,
        > >but whatever the long term trend is, it's
        > inevitable. This
        > >is just an opinion -- I believe evolution has a
        > long term
        > >direction that emerges out of billions of random
        > >interactions. I don't really know what direction
        > the
        > >long-term trend will take once technologies like
        > >neurotechnology, nanotechnology, robotics & AI take
        > off.
        > >Anyway, you asked :)
        >
        > I can't see any reason why our outcome wouldn't be
        > undetermined, and
        > even be in part dependent on what we do
        > (unfortunately no one has
        > left us a manual). Will we wipe ourselves out, or
        > last long enough to
        > stagnate or singularitize? If we do the latter, what
        > kind of
        > singularity will we be? (the question that interests
        > me most) What if
        > anything will happen to those left behind?
        >
        > Life,
        > John
        > --
        > All you /\/\ John Abbe "Faith is not
        > belief without proof,
        > need \ / CatHerder but trust
        > without reservation."
        > is... \/ http://ourpla.net/john/
        > --Elton Trueblood
        >
        > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
        >
        > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        > bafuture-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
        >
        >
        >
        > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
        > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
        >
        >

        ___________________________________________________________
        Do You Yahoo!? -- Une adresse @... gratuite et en français !
        Yahoo! Mail : http://fr.mail.yahoo.com
      • Joschka Fisher
        No John...you played a number of games from the perspective of zero-sum, but much like the grand discretitor of zero-sum with Governing Dynamics, John Nash s
        Message 3 of 10 , Nov 7, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          No John...you played a number of games from the
          perspective of zero-sum, but much like the grand
          discretitor of zero-sum with Governing Dynamics, John
          Nash's personal illusions ( which by no means
          interfered with his applicable theories)

          You have to learn to take the blinders off!

          joschka fischer
          =================

          > I don't know about this. I've played a lot of
          > zero-sum games -- board
          > & card games -- and i find a kind of detachment and
          > clarity, or even
          > equanimity in it, which i learned, to enjoy the all
          > out conflict of
          > the game.
          >
          > But i do see how zero-sum games can easily be used
          > to train people to
          > be brutish, anti-change, and anti-innovation. And i
          > wouldn't enjoy
          > being one of the people now spear-heading
          > non-zero-sum thinking in
          > the government. Uphill i imagine...


          ___________________________________________________________
          Do You Yahoo!? -- Une adresse @... gratuite et en français !
          Yahoo! Mail : http://fr.mail.yahoo.com
        • John Abbe
          ... I m afraid i can t quite understand what you re saying here. Can you say a little about what blinders you believe i have on? ... -- All you / / John Abbe
          Message 4 of 10 , Nov 7, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            At 11:22 AM +0100 2003-11-07, Joschka Fisher wrote:
            >No John...you played a number of games from the
            >perspective of zero-sum, but much like the grand
            >discretitor of zero-sum with Governing Dynamics, John
            >Nash's personal illusions ( which by no means
            >interfered with his applicable theories)
            >
            >You have to learn to take the blinders off!

            I'm afraid i can't quite understand what you're saying here. Can you
            say a little about what blinders you believe i have on?

            >John Abbe wrote:
            > > I don't know about this. I've played a lot of
            >> zero-sum games -- board
            >> & card games -- and i find a kind of detachment and
            >> clarity, or even
            >> equanimity in it, which i learned, to enjoy the all
            >> out conflict of
            >> the game.
            >>
            >> But i do see how zero-sum games can easily be used
            >> to train people to
            >> be brutish, anti-change, and anti-innovation. And i
            >> wouldn't enjoy
            >> being one of the people now spear-heading
            >> non-zero-sum thinking in
            > > the government. Uphill i imagine...

            --
            All you /\/\ John Abbe "Faith is not belief without proof,
            need \ / CatHerder but trust without reservation."
            is... \/ http://ourpla.net/john/ --Elton Trueblood
          • Joschka Fisher/joseph anderson
            Ok.. My reference here covered too much territory. I ll try to focus the lens: a bit. Zero Sum: My Problem: Zero-Sum, when used by people seems to
            Message 5 of 10 , Nov 12, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              Ok..

              My reference here covered too much territory. I'll
              try to "focus the lens: a bit.

              Zero Sum:
              My Problem: "Zero-Sum, when used by people seems to
              fictitious", or am I being too pedantic, here?

              Specific Reference: Zero Sum Board games

              Using the OED defintion as:
              1d; zero-sum a., in the theory of games, applied to a
              game in which the sum of the winnings of all the
              players is always zero; also transf., denoting any
              situation in which advantage to one participant
              necessarily leads to disadvantage to one or more of
              the others;


              Zero-sum board games as Poker ( let's assume 2 players
              cause in the math it's safer) and using definition
              1d:transf, yea...I'll agree.

              In chess ( 2 players ) though there is win, loose or
              stalement which puts the zero-sum probability at most
              at 1/3.

              Then too...in a tournament...you don't necessarily
              have to win all your games. One can use those
              stalements, the ratings of the person played and of
              course "the human element", to come out ahead or win
              in the long run of the tournament.

              In games of more than two players...if there is a
              fixed pot of "cash" or whatever winnings...then yea
              one can say it's a zero-sum.

              But in real-life situations this is hardly the case
              and zero-sum doesn't seem to apply ACCURATELY in
              economic situations.

              Unless I convince you the "Economic Situation" is
              zero-sum, when in reality it isn't!

              I"m wondering if the zero-sum perspective in a game is
              giving "illusion" to real situtations or gerneral
              statements. John Nash proved the limits of zero-sum
              and von Neuman..said "a simple poker game is analogous
              to social situations, but he "Bluffed" his way in
              situations of more than 2 players!

              the 2nd objection I had was whomever you were
              addressing ...regarding zero-sum government which
              sounds like an "Clockwork Orange": 2 things that just
              don't go together or at best had nebulous definition.

              ?am i making sense?
              --- John Abbe <johnca@...> a écrit : > At
              11:22 AM +0100 2003-11-07, Joschka Fisher wrote:
              > >No John...you played a number of games from the
              > >perspective of zero-sum, but much like the grand
              > >discretitor of zero-sum with Governing Dynamics,
              > John
              > >Nash's personal illusions ( which by no means
              > >interfered with his applicable theories)
              > >
              > >You have to learn to take the blinders off!
              >
              > I'm afraid i can't quite understand what you're
              > saying here. Can you
              > say a little about what blinders you believe i have
              > on?
              >
              > >John Abbe wrote:
              > > > I don't know about this. I've played a lot of
              > >> zero-sum games -- board
              > >> & card games -- and i find a kind of detachment
              > and
              > >> clarity, or even
              > >> equanimity in it, which i learned, to enjoy the
              > all
              > >> out conflict of
              > >> the game.
              > >>
              > >> But i do see how zero-sum games can easily be
              > used
              > >> to train people to
              > >> be brutish, anti-change, and anti-innovation.
              > And i
              > >> wouldn't enjoy
              > >> being one of the people now spear-heading
              > >> non-zero-sum thinking in
              > > > the government. Uphill i imagine...
              >
              > --
              > All you /\/\ John Abbe "Faith is not
              > belief without proof,
              > need \ / CatHerder but trust
              > without reservation."
              > is... \/ http://ourpla.net/john/
              > --Elton Trueblood

              ___________________________________________________________
              Do You Yahoo!? -- Une adresse @... gratuite et en français !
              Yahoo! Mail : http://fr.mail.yahoo.com
            • Troy Gardner
              Using the OED defintion as: 1d; zero-sum a., in the theory of games, applied to a game in which the sum of the winnings of all the players is always zero; also
              Message 6 of 10 , Nov 12, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                Using the OED defintion as:
                1d; zero-sum a., in the theory of games, applied to a
                game in which the sum of the winnings of all the
                players is always zero; also transf., denoting any
                situation in which advantage to one participant
                necessarily leads to disadvantage to one or more of
                the others;


                > In chess ( 2 players ) though there is win, loose or
                > stalement which puts the zero-sum probability at most
                > at 1/3.

                One quibble. This is assuming that win, lose and stalemate have equal
                probabilites of happening (which may be true if players are at equal skill
                level like two grownups playing tic-tac-toe), however i would think that
                averaged out over time, statemates would be less than 5% of the total
                interactions -and possibly approaching 0, not 33%. I don't have time to look
                into chess matches to see how many stalemates occured overall.

                If they do eventually approach 0 for all practical purposes we have the
                zero-sum definition. But regardless, in a stalemate no one wins so no winnings
                are moved, or lost, no value/$ is ever created or lost, just transferred. Whose
                winning depends on how one is averaging things out and what samples one is
                considering.

                Scenario 1: two clone players (AI computer programs) play chess each with a
                wallet of $50. Everytime one wins they have to give $2 to the other. Stalemate
                or win or lose there is never more than $100 to change hands, ever. This isn't
                very realistic to how many systems work.

                Scenario 2: the same two clone enter the competition giving their $50 to a
                banker to hold until one is deemed the winner of 4 consecutive games or the
                majority of rounds, which never happens cause players can never beat each other
                that consistently or stalemate each other until eternity.

                Meanwhile The banker takes $2 from each as administrative fees, and collects
                10% on the money by wisely investing it, and reinvesting it in InvestByAgent's
                hedge fund. Each time a small percentage he puts back into the pot to entice
                the players to keep playing. Well this isn't directly in the metrics of
                winning/losing, but seems that the banker wins, overall.


                I'm wondering how many people approach situations as zero sum games when it's
                really just the scope they are imposing on a more complex reality. If I just
                consider myself a game player as in the above I'm trapped in a zero sum game,
                if I look outside the box and start adminstering games the rules may change.

                > Then too...in a tournament...you don't necessarily
                > have to win all your games. One can use those
                > stalements, the ratings of the person played and of
                > course "the human element", to come out ahead or win
                > in the long run of the tournament.

                this gets back to the definition. "the sum of the winnings of all the
                players is always zero". You are measuring 'winnings' with things that don't
                have the same physical constraints so don't sum to zero. e.g. "human element"
                -like in the special olmpics or contestants of survivor, fame can make everyone
                winners if that's the sole metric.. Put another way in the same tournament
                between apples and oranges. By advertising red apples I can increase sales and
                maybe take away from jonagold appples, but it may not necessarily compete
                against oranges.


                =====
                Troy Gardner -"How you live your seconds, is how you live your days, is how you live your life..."

                http://www.troygardner.com -my world, philosophy, music, writings.
                http://www.troyworks.com -consulting & training in Flash, Java, and C#
                http://www.intrio.com -helping bridge the gap between the humans and machines. Home of the Flickey�
              • Joschka Fisher/joseph anderson
                In response to paragraph below: One quibble. This is assuming that win, lose and ... Uh...yea. But the assumption: Equal players or all things being equal is
                Message 7 of 10 , Nov 12, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  In response to paragraph below:
                  One quibble. This is assuming that win, lose and
                  > stalemate have equal
                  > probabilites of happening (which may be true if
                  > players are at equal skill
                  > level like two grownups playing tic-tac-toe),
                  > however i would think that
                  > averaged out over time, statemates would be less
                  > than 5% of the total
                  > interactions -and possibly approaching 0, not 33%. I
                  > don't have time to look
                  > into chess matches to see how many stalemates
                  > occured overall.

                  Uh...yea. But the assumption: "Equal players or all
                  things being equal" is not a necessity within some
                  range. There is a variance from "Equal players"
                  assumption. Consider, I'm a lowly 1400 player, yet I
                  am able to beat or stalemate a 1900 - 2400 player
                  cause.
                  Also, we play by the clock so you also loose if you
                  run out of time.

                  a) The ones ( note the classification here) that take
                  12-15 moves to set-themselves up and also memorize
                  openings are vulnerable in that time frame and that's
                  when I've gotten them or can stalwart them to
                  stalemate.

                  b) There are "symmetries" in chess that I've seen
                  since jr High days where, say if I take your queen...6
                  - 15 moves later the possibility is there for you to
                  take mine. It happens too often with rarely a way out
                  of it for me to say it's skill!
                  Surely symmetric operations with other pieces or their
                  combinations also must occur.

                  averaged out over time, statemates would be less
                  > than 5% of the total
                  > interactions -and possibly approaching 0, not 33%. I
                  > don't have time to look
                  > into chess matches to see how many stalemates
                  > occured overall.

                  c) well, yea but you never play that many games for a
                  decent average ( not at my level anyhows!) Then too
                  is the human element: psyche, bluffs and aggression
                  play heavily on a players actions, moves etc.

                  --- Troy Gardner <thegreyman@...> a écrit : >
                  Using the OED defintion as:
                  > 1d; zero-sum a., in the theory of games, applied to
                  > a
                  > game in which the sum of the winnings of all the
                  > players is always zero; also transf., denoting any
                  > situation in which advantage to one participant
                  > necessarily leads to disadvantage to one or more of
                  > the others;
                  >
                  >
                  > > In chess ( 2 players ) though there is win, loose
                  > or
                  > > stalement which puts the zero-sum probability at
                  > most
                  > > at 1/3.
                  >
                  > One quibble. This is assuming that win, lose and
                  > stalemate have equal
                  > probabilites of happening (which may be true if
                  > players are at equal skill
                  > level like two grownups playing tic-tac-toe),
                  > however i would think that
                  > averaged out over time, statemates would be less
                  > than 5% of the total
                  > interactions -and possibly approaching 0, not 33%. I
                  > don't have time to look
                  > into chess matches to see how many stalemates
                  > occured overall.
                  >
                  > If they do eventually approach 0 for all practical
                  > purposes we have the
                  > zero-sum definition. But regardless, in a stalemate
                  > no one wins so no winnings
                  > are moved, or lost, no value/$ is ever created or
                  > lost, just transferred. Whose
                  > winning depends on how one is averaging things out
                  > and what samples one is
                  > considering.
                  >
                  > Scenario 1: two clone players (AI computer programs)
                  > play chess each with a
                  > wallet of $50. Everytime one wins they have to give
                  > $2 to the other. Stalemate
                  > or win or lose there is never more than $100 to
                  > change hands, ever. This isn't
                  > very realistic to how many systems work.
                  >
                  > Scenario 2: the same two clone enter the competition
                  > giving their $50 to a
                  > banker to hold until one is deemed the winner of 4
                  > consecutive games or the
                  > majority of rounds, which never happens cause
                  > players can never beat each other
                  > that consistently or stalemate each other until
                  > eternity.
                  >
                  > Meanwhile The banker takes $2 from each as
                  > administrative fees, and collects
                  > 10% on the money by wisely investing it, and
                  > reinvesting it in InvestByAgent's
                  > hedge fund. Each time a small percentage he puts
                  > back into the pot to entice
                  > the players to keep playing. Well this isn't
                  > directly in the metrics of
                  > winning/losing, but seems that the banker wins,
                  > overall.
                  >
                  >
                  > I'm wondering how many people approach situations as
                  > zero sum games when it's
                  > really just the scope they are imposing on a more
                  > complex reality. If I just
                  > consider myself a game player as in the above I'm
                  > trapped in a zero sum game,
                  > if I look outside the box and start adminstering
                  > games the rules may change.
                  >
                  > > Then too...in a tournament...you don't necessarily
                  > > have to win all your games. One can use those
                  > > stalements, the ratings of the person played and
                  > of
                  > > course "the human element", to come out ahead or
                  > win
                  > > in the long run of the tournament.
                  >
                  > this gets back to the definition. "the sum of the
                  > winnings of all the
                  > players is always zero". You are measuring
                  > 'winnings' with things that don't
                  > have the same physical constraints so don't sum to
                  > zero. e.g. "human element"
                  > -like in the special olmpics or contestants of
                  > survivor, fame can make everyone
                  > winners if that's the sole metric.. Put another way
                  > in the same tournament
                  > between apples and oranges. By advertising red
                  > apples I can increase sales and
                  > maybe take away from jonagold appples, but it may
                  > not necessarily compete
                  > against oranges.
                  >
                  >
                  > =====
                  > Troy Gardner -"How you live your seconds, is how you
                  > live your days, is how you live your life..."
                  >
                  > http://www.troygardner.com -my world, philosophy,
                  > music, writings.
                  > http://www.troyworks.com -consulting & training in
                  > Flash, Java, and C#
                  > http://www.intrio.com -helping bridge the gap
                  > between the humans and machines. Home of the
                  Flickey™

                  ___________________________________________________________
                  Do You Yahoo!? -- Une adresse @... gratuite et en français !
                  Yahoo! Mail : http://fr.mail.yahoo.com
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.