Military Running a Parallel Earth Simulator 470
Fantastic Lad writes "The US Department of Defense (DOD) may already be creating a copy of you in an alternate reality. Putting supercomputers to an innovative use, the military is simulating our planet in an effort to predict the outcome of different scenarios. They might run tests to see how long 'you' can go without food or water, or how 'you' will respond to televised propaganda. Billions of nodes are created in the system, intended to reflect every man, woman, and child. 'Called the Sentient World Simulation (SWS), it will be a "synthetic mirror of the real world with automated continuous calibration with respect to current real-world information", according to a concept paper for the project. Simulex is the company developing these systems, and they list pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly and defense contractor Lockheed Martin among their private sector clients. The U.S. military is their biggest customer, apparently now running the most complex version of the system. JFCOM-9 is now capable of running real-time simulations for up to 62 nations, including Iraq, Afghanistan, and China. The simulations gobble up breaking news, census data, economic indicators, and climactic events in the real world, along with proprietary information such as military intelligence."
The political options (Score:4, Interesting)
Seriously, I wonder how much the current fiasco in Iraq has to do with the desire for this program. There are probably a lot of people who would like to have been able to say: "Mr. President, our supercomputers say that this is a bad idea."
It could be used for politics. Imagine someone from Ron Paul's campaign saying: "Our ideas are better, and now we can finally prove it!"
PS: Hey, Zonk! It is spelled 'parallel'.
Re:The political options (Score:5, Insightful)
I can see it now:
Re: (Score:2)
Good Advice is Useless when Ignored. (Score:3, Insightful)
Chance of desired outcome: 21.7%
Correct infrmation does not matter when the boss has an agenda. The CIA gave Bush a report that predicted failure in Iraq and it's consequences [commondreams.org]. The computer can do the same, but it won't do any good. The neo-cons had a plan [wordpress.com] and activated it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly. When General Shinseki said that 400,000 troops would be needed to stabilize Iraq, Rumsfeld announced Shinseki's replacement. If a computer had told him the same thing, he probably would have had it melted down and sold for scrap metal. There were intelligence failures that contributed to the disaster in Iraq, but the primary failure was one of leadership.
Re:The political options (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The political options (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The political options (Score:4, Interesting)
Maybe the problem isn't that the Iraqis fear we will stay, but when we will leave. Perhaps the reason we're not training the Iraqi security force quickly enough (remember, the benchmark for starting the withdrawal?) is that the people who would join are afraid we will pull out before completion leaving them and their families high and dry for retaliation. Where would this fear be coming from, I wonder?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I have found a more practical solution: Guessing.
How does the simulation take into account the behavior and effect of a few odious, but influential people, say, Dick Cheney or Osama bin Laden?
This story is a perfect example of the theories of the brilliant economist Nassim Nicholas Taleb, whose book, The Black Swan tells how when predicting, havin
Re:The political options (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Well, yeah.... those simulations have been tested by giving them historical data and seeing how their results "predict" what would happen next... then comparing their output to what actually did happen next. If the results differ, they refine the simulation some more and try again. Not foolproof by any means, but I don't think you can dismiss them out of hand, especially when many different (independently develo
Re:The political options (Score:5, Interesting)
Do you want to play thermonuclear war, etc?
It's not so much the "prove we are better" aspect, but "how can we stay on top when we decide to throw a little chaos in the mix?". The big dog needs to stay the big dog. Real time intelligence is one thing, but now they have "response forecasting".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Chaos theory suggests that increasing precision by a decimal point would lead to totally different results, yet the computer isn't considering anything close to accurate.
So throwing chaos into chaos - well, the prediction is chaos.
What may be nice is the investment in computing technology will spin off lots of nice gadgets for us. Just to let the simulate people know, the fact that people are aware they are bei
Re:The political options (Score:4, Interesting)
You forget that people gave up on chasing what they wanted in the 90's.
Now everyone thinks they are entitled to the American dream, without working for it.
Re:The political options (Score:5, Funny)
What if Neville Chamberlain had a backbone? (Score:4, Insightful)
Face facts: right now, in Iraq the US is fighting a war against the agents of Iran.
And the rhetoric coming out of Iran is straight out of Mein Kampf. Except this time around the ubermensch are Islamic, and the subhumans who deserve to die are infidels, "crusaders", and - once again - the Jews. Imagine that.
Only this time, the megalomaniac will have nukes, and since he's not just a power-hungry despot but a religious fanatic, he won't be afraid to use them. How many UN resolutions do you think it will take to stop Iran's nuclear program?
So yeah, let's run a simulation where Iran's rulers get their way in the Middle East. How many nukes do you think it'll take them to "wipe Israel off the map"? Hey, that's what they OPENLY SAY they're going to do.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Well we now know the US needs more than 18 UN resolutions and 3 Congressional authorizations in order to go to war. That's what Bush had for Iraq and he sure won't touch Darfur or Iran with one jot less than that.
Re:What if Neville Chamberlain had a backbone? (Score:5, Interesting)
Good. Not because I think it's a bad idea to go into Darfur (or Iran for that matter), but because the Iraq war featured the most inept political leadership in US history. If a war is waged in my name, do it right. Overwhelming force from day one. Shoot the looters to maintain order. Write their constitution for them, and make sure it includes provisions to change it to what they want after we leave.
In general, I have no problems with US military action. Demand tribute for freedom of the seas? Fuck you Tripoli. Blow up our ship, or cut off our Captain's ear? Fuck you Spain. Have land that would make it convinent to have a redundant intercontinental rail-line? Fuck you Mexico.
That said, please don't make me look stupid for agreeing with you on Iraq. Neither the UN nor any Congressional acts supported us going in, certainly not with the facts the way they were. Hell, Congress even said "If the President tells us the CIA/NSA/FBI/Tweety Bird told him that X is true, he has our permission to invade." And Bush wrote back "The US Congress said in a bill '... X is true'. Therefore I have permission to invade."
The brinksmanship had worked. The inspectors were happy with their cooperation, and Saddam sent us a 1000+ page document detailing forbidden weapons he had. I don't remember Bush Sr. bombing Moscow once they folded.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:What if Neville Chamberlain had a backbone? (Score:5, Insightful)
Ignoring your misunderstanding of Iran (it's a democracy that's elected itself a theocracy: "them" is more appropriate), there's a simple answer to your question:
Zero.
If Iran gets nukes, and uses said nuclear weapons as you suggest, there will be no more Iran. The President won't even need to go to Congress -- there are extant laws regarding USA's nuclear doctrine, and a surprise attack with a nuclear weapon will result in the world's first, and only, nuclear counterattack. (Why, exactly, do you think Israel doesn't declare its nuclear weapons? Because their real nuclear arsenal is the United States' arsenal. Same deal we have with Japan and Germany.)
Yes, a bunch of people would die. And the face of world politics would be forever changed. But Iran knows this, the Iranian people and the Iranian government are smart, and they know that the only way they can guarantee the end of their country is to actually nuke Israel. Heck, an Iranian nuclear attack might wind up getting their entire religion declared a criminal conspiracy in the west, which would make the current post-9/11 prejudice look like a walk in the park.
Twelfth Imam (Score:5, Insightful)
Shi'as believe that Muhammad al-Mahdi will reappear when the world has fallen into chaos and civil war emerges between the human race for no reason. (Twelfth Imam [wikipedia.org]) Ahmadinejad is part of an unorthodox group that believes muslims can hasten his coming by deliberately sinking the world into chaos (as opposed to "no reason"). (A nuanced discussion is here [ashbrook.org].) The publicly announced intention of Iran is to sink the world into chaos so as to usher in a new age.
Mutually Assured Destruction does not deter such a leader, because mutual destruction is in fact his goal. The job of our government *should* be to confine the destruction to Iran as much as possible. It seems tempting to try and replace Ahmadinejad, but we always seem to screw up and make things worse with such attempts. (See Iraq.)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, even if we discount ideas that we see in a lot of mysticism and in some interpretations of quantum theory about the observer's role in creating reality(this is slashdot, af
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Twelfth Imam (Score:5, Insightful)
Think hard about this. If you commit a suicide bombing you go to heaven and good things happen. So why would these religious leaders hesitate going to heaven? Ooops I know why because maybe they would have to give up POWER! I knew the rhetoric of Iraq was wrong because these dictators want to keep their power! They have no interest in loosing power.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Wake up people! Religion is for violent, brutal simpletons who are not interested in conventional logic.
When a persons only way to describe spiritual experience is the language of a violent, militant religion, their worldview will reflect that.
Reformation into a spiritual talking shop took hundreds of years for Christianity, and there are still plenty of Christian "Taliban" about.
Is
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The more likely senario is Isreal would nuke Iran and possibly serveral other Arab nations simultaneously (re: the six day war). The problems in the middle east (and other oil bearing locations, like Sudan) are caused by the veto wielding members of the UNSC bickering via proxy wars just as they did before Reagan "defeated the commies". Ironically the UNSC is politically similar to Iran's "revolutionary council", both are justified by po
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What if Neville Chamberlain had a backbone? (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually... there is an emerging consensus among historians that Neville Chamberlain quite possibly has gotten a raw deal. Despite the video-friendly meme of returning from Munich waving the paper and saying "Peace in our time", Chamberlain had a pretty good grasp of the diplomatic and military situation. In 1938, the British rearmament had barely begun, the British people were not ready to endure a war, and -- most importantly -- the Chain Home system of radar stations had not yet been deployed. The balance of power was stacked heavily in favor of Germany but it was also clear that, with the Allies finally starting to wake up (and their economies starting to stir), that balance would increasingly tilt toward them. Chamberlain knew that. Hell, even Hitler knew that -- it's why he was pushing so hard for (limited) war in 1938 and why he flew into a rage when Chamberlain "tricked" him into a peace conference.
So maybe the lesson from history actually is, sometimes, it's a good idea to wait out the situation. Sometimes, time really is on your side... no matter how it looks at the moment.
Of course, the other lesson of history is, you're gonna get roasted for "appeasement".
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
to recap: iraq was hitler. iran is hitler. anyone who speaks provocatively against the US and its allies is hitler.
so, we better kill them before they do something totally evil, like hitler did. most importantly, do it in the name of democracy, social equality, and freedom!
hitler.
i like beating up 7-year-old hitlers. SHOCK AND AWE, BABY!
hitler hitler.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Or how to compare two things that have absolutely nothing in common...
May I submit variants that are more in touch with current political speech ?
And if you think Iraq is a fiasco, just think of the children!
And if you think Iraq is a fiasco, you can take a horse to the water but you can't make pigs fly!
And if you think Iraq is a fiasco, you should see those in Rome! (uh, no that's fresco, sorry)
And
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you kidding ? It would make them even more desperate to get nukes from any source.
Civilian casualties didn't stop the US in 1945 and they didn't stop them invading Iraq. I think it's pretty obvious at this p
Re:The political options (Score:5, Informative)
Personally... (Score:5, Funny)
"Mr. President, we found a scenario in which Iraq will become th 52nd US State, oil will flow freely, WMDs were found in Saddam's closet, and bin-Laden was found in his bedroom."
"Excellent! Invade!"
Re:Personally... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Personally... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:The political options (Score:4, Insightful)
Half the world was telling him that.
He didn't pay any attention to millions of people. Why the fuck would he care what one computer predicts?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As an online discussion begins on slashdot, the probability of blaming Bush for something approaches one.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I hate this fucking simulation.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Whatever it is, it looks like Shakespear.
Re:The political options (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, on that basis it will depend on how far back in history you want to go. Rather than cling to the help that you provided to Europe during WW2, why not consider how many native Americans might still be alive if you hadn't taken the actions that you did a few hundred years ago.
It is easy to pick one time in history when events would certainly be on your side, and I'm not contesting that there are not many such times - America has made many valuable contributions to the world - but your 'belief' that your nation is threatened and therefore it demands your intervention in other countries is not viewed by much of the world as being one of your best moves.
The current threat to US citizens is far greater from car accidents or even natural disasters than it is from terrorism. But the billions that are spent in measures to 'protect' the USA (immigration controls, military intervention, beginning the downward slide by losing sight on one's ideals) could be spent far more wisely and to greater effect without pissing off a huge part of the world. I know that the world is far from perfect but what makes you think that you have the right to dictate how it should be, or even that you are the only one to know how a perfect world should be designed?
Unfortunately, this is not simply an American thing. Many other countries, for whatever reason, seem to wish to emulate the USA and follow the same path. I'm not America-bashing; my own birthplace was, until a few days ago, happily going the same way. Perhaps there is a change in the air, perhaps not.... But a few terrorist bombs in London will not result in us attacking another country in the near future. We have witnessed first hand terrorism in the UK for many years, long before it threatened the USA. In fact, a large number of your country men seemed to think that it was a good idea to help fund it. Were they also right in what they did, or can you concede that Americans can also make bad decisions like everyone else on this planet?
So Chris Carter was right? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So Chris Carter was right? (Score:5, Interesting)
This also hits upon a weakness in the scenario presented in the original Matrix (the sequels are dead to me). If the machines control the world, how can the rebels even exist? Forget about the logic that Agents should have reaperbot aims, they should be able to materialize 15 ton weights and anvils to drop on runners. So, why aren't they?
The retcon I came up with makes a lot of sense. The machines are like the Japanese of the 80's, not being very good at inventing technology but very, very good at improving it. From this perspective, they never invented the matrix technology, it was probably a military application that got spun off by some start-ups to create live-in MMORPG's. Whatever the reason, the technology existed. The loading construct, the world simulation, all of this is built on top of existing code. I've not done a lot of programming but I've seen scary projects where people have no idea what parts of the code do, they just know it breaks if you touch it. It's left alone like the forest where the bogeyman lives.
So, how did the war go? Machines fight man, man blackens the sky, mass human die-off, machines struggle to come up with a way to survive. Machines would of course have fusion power so humans are not batteries. Human brains turn out to make great parallel processors, cheaper than trying to do it in silicon. Why do they humans have whole bodies instead of just brains in jars? Because that's what the original technology was designed for and the machines were not able to figure out a way around it. So how are humans able to hack into the system? Because there are holes that even the machines can't figure out how to patch. If Windows is the most complex software project ever, just imagine what code will be like that far in the future. Why are the Agents not able to hit the humans every time they shoot? Jammer software prevents the agents from getting a good fix on where a fast-moving runner is, there's enough imprecision in what they know of as the xyz coordinates that they can miss unless they're close. Why can't the agents make anvils fall out of the sky? Because of anti-cheating code leftover from the original design. The deja vu-causing hacks are time-intensive enough to pull off and can still bug the system, thus they are of limited use. Why is the timeline set in the late 20th century? Why not the 19th century? Why not the 17th or ancient Rome? Maybe that's what the best codebase they had was designed to simulate. The movie never answered whether the entire world was simulated from pole to pole or whether it was just the city they were in. The movie never stated how the timeline was manipulated, just how far the machines ran through the world before resetting the timeline. Did they run through a five year interval and just do a memory reset for everyone in the Matrix? Did they run multiple world instances? None of these questions were answered and they probably would have bogged down the movie if they were.
Anyway, I'm still laughing at the idea of Harsh Realm, the guy's supposed to spend a season or two hunting down a guy who should be sitting in the VR pod next to him. Reset the damn sim!
Re:So Chris Carter was right? (Score:4, Funny)
Alternate reality... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
The downside... (Score:5, Funny)
Whoa.
k.
W.O.P.R. (Score:5, Funny)
They should have called it W.O.P.R.
My virtual self? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:My virtual self? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
How do you know that you aren't a simulation for some real Joe Blow out there, hmm?
Chances are, you are.
http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html [simulation-argument.com]
ABSTRACT
This paper argues that at least one of the following propositions is true: (1) the human species is very likely to go extinct before reaching a "posthuman" stage; (2) any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history (or variations thereof); (3) we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation. It follows that the belief that there is a significant chance that we will one day become posthumans who run ancestor-simulations is false, unless we are currently living in a simulation. A number of other consequences of this result are also discussed.
Re:My virtual self? (Score:5, Funny)
Paralell...? (Score:4, Funny)
Hand it over, Zonk.
Oh really? (Score:3, Funny)
Ultimate Sim City? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Ultimate Sim City? (Score:4, Funny)
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Let's play Global Thermonuclear War. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Let's play Global Thermonuclear War. (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
1. USA 2. NON US side of Iraq 3. China. 4. north korea 5. north vietnam 6. UK 7. Russia 8. cuba 9. iran 10. germany 11. france 12. canada 13. US Civil war north 14. US Civil south 15. japan.
16. show next page
If they're doing Norway... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
google... (Score:2)
Just save are money and say.. (Score:4, Insightful)
how about a good game of chess?
and then move the supercomputers back to the star gate at NORAD
Yes, but... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Obl. Futurama? (Score:2, Insightful)
Professor: No, just the two.
Fry: Oh, well, I'm sure that's enough.
I just hope... (Score:4, Funny)
What movie? (Score:2)
I think it was black and white. It was about a scientist who created a simulation of the world that he could watch under a microscope. As he watched history, which progressed at an accelerated rate, and a war happened he was attacked by a ghost of some kind. Just as history was to the point that he could see what would happen in the future he was attacked a final time by the ghost and had to destroy the experimen
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Frank
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting name match with the Star Trek episode.
Which one are we? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Look for optimisations in the model.
Re: (Score:2)
" ABSTRACT. This paper argues that at least one of the following propositions is true: (1) the human species is very likely to go extinct before reaching a "posthuman" stage; (2) any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history (or variations thereof); (3) we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation. It follows that the belief that there is a significant chance that we will one day become posthumans who run an
Re:Which one are we? (Score:5, Insightful)
Find the hottest female you can & grab her ass.
If she slaps you, you'll know you're alive real quick.
If she fucks your brains out, you'll know you're alive a little slower, but for a longer period of time.
If you're a simulation, then you've just got away with grabbing some hotties ass.
You can't lose.
Been done. (Score:2)
Predicted Effect of Iraq Sanctions (Score:5, Interesting)
They've been doing that for a long time with or without computers. For example, during the first gulf war, Iraq's water treatment facilities were deliberately targeted. Later the DIA assessed the effect that sanctions restricting replacement parts and vital chemicals would have on the population.
So they accurately predicted that Iraqis would die because of the sanctions, and indeed they did, in droves. Denis Halliday who was running the humanitarian operation resigned, calling the sanctions "genocidal". His successor, Hans von Sponeck also resigned and condemned the sanctions and the effect they were having on the people.
Re:That's The Point (Score:4, Insightful)
Any sanctions that deliberately restrict vitals such as fresh water are criminal in the extreme. Inflicting death upon the population in the hope of achieving political change is commonly called terrorism. Here's what Madelaine Albright had to say on the issue.
"We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And - and you know, is the price worth it?"
Madeleine Albright (at that time, US Ambassador to the UN):
"I think this is a very hard choice, but the price - we think the price is worth it."
An unbelievable statement to make. If only they had direct and clear evidence like that against Milosevic, his trial would have been over in a week. Of course this kind of terrorism/collective punishment goes on all the time, although not on the genocidal scale of the Iraq sanctions. A similar practice has been going on recently with suspension of aid to the Palestinians (and also taxes owed to them). We're not talking about preventing them from buying widescreen TVs and DVD Players, this is essential aid like food and water. They know full well that withholding hundreds of millions of dollars (and more recently restricting aid vehicles entering Gaza) will hurt the population severely.
Considering the terrible suffering of the Iraqi people, I'm very glad people were bypassing the sanctions, even if their motives were greed. Maybe someone even managed to sell some vital water-treatment supplies and save a few people. Just picture the whole thing from the point of view of an ordinary Iraqi. For years the US, UK et al, is supporting the dictator who is oppressing you and killing your friends and family. They even encourage and support his war on Iran which is killing so many of the people you know. Then they decide they don't like him anymore and impose sanctions which result in the deaths of some 500,000 children, possibly including some of your own. I can't imagine the rage that so many Iraqis must feel towards the west.
Overheard in the lab... (Score:2)
Joe: Yeah, not sure what's going on here, I just recompiled after adding the Slashdot: (Comments Module). I didn't think it would make an appreciable difference, as adding the Slashdot: (Article Reading) made no noticeable difference in performance.
The George W. Bush Node... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Parallllllllel. (Score:4, Interesting)
The article seemed too dumb to be true, but guess what? The company is actually selling systems. I guess paranoia is as effective a sales tool when used on military budgeteers as it is when selling insurance to people. Better to spend a big pile of money on something which might possibly work, (unless it doesn't), rather than let somebody else maybe possibly get one up on you. Or something like that.
I seem to recall that Dr. Who had a parallel universe simulator in one episode. Seemed like a cool idea. But I bet it wasn't trawling information from Facebook to make its updates. How many people with brown skin are you friends with who like films with explosions as reviewed on Flicker?
-FL
Oh Really? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
good for computer geeks? (Score:5, Funny)
Would you like to play a game? (Score:3, Interesting)
No. I want to play thermal nuclear war!
The only problem with this: (Score:3, Insightful)
They're doing it wrong... (Score:2)
Joking aside, this would indeed seem to be an early version of an Ancestor-Simluation. Which would appear to imply that we are living in computers ourselves [simulation-argument.com], since even now we are trying to run such simulations. And that opens up a really big can of worms:
Are simulated universes nested recursively? To what extent? Do they regress forever? Do "higher up" simulators judge and/or interact with their simulati
Home is the Hangman (Score:4, Interesting)
-- Roger Zelazny, "Home is the Hangman" (1975)
Ok, this is sad (Score:3, Funny)
Not really feasibly possible (Score:3, Insightful)
Currently some of the most powerful super computers are devoted to predicting JUST the weather yet they still can't get it particularly accurate, especially if you try and predict the weather greater than 7 days in advance. If we can't predict the weather, what makes us think we can predict the world??? Especially years in advance. It's a ridiculous notion.
Another good example is the chinese board game "Go" [wikipedia.org]. The best computer players are only as good as good amateur human players. This is due to the high branching factor of the game. The area of the board is very large (more than five times the size of a chess board) and the number of legal moves rarely go below 50 (compare chess, where the average number of moves is 37). Throughout most of the game the number of legal moves stay at around 150-250 per turn (from Wikipedia).
My point is, the world is a bloody complex system and for current technology, essentially impossible. Take into account: The random vagaries of the human mind, the climate, the weather, the earths complex geology, natural disasters, evolution (new bacterium evolves - wipes out humanity), the animal kingdom (random malarial mosquito bites world leader), genetics (two people have sex, produce next Hitler).
I could go one but I think my point is made..
Hey! Recursion! (Score:4, Funny)
I wonder if, inside the Pentagon's simulator, they're building a simulator. If not, it's not a complete simulation, is it? So it isn't accurate, is it?
Oh, I thought not.
Amateurs.
Junk (Score:3, Insightful)
(Second) reality check (Score:4, Insightful)
The behaviours of actual individuals are subsumed into the larger crowds, although 'warlord' style individuals may be represented from a political perspective. The emphasis is on trends, not predictions of actual individual actions. A good analogy for this is Psychohistory in Asimov's early Foundation novels - and the current sims fall a long way short of the predictive power available to Hari Seldon.
Re: (Score:2)