The answer should be NO, but, do you think this would work ?
Good scientists are not only able to uncover patterns in the things they study, but to use this information to predict the future. Meteorologists study atmospheric pressure and wind speed to predict the trajectories of future storms. A biologist may predict the growth of a tumor based on its current size and development. A financial analyst may try to predict the ups and downs of a stock based on things like market capitalization or cash flow.
Perhaps even more interesting than the above phenomena is that of predicting the behavior of human beings. Attempts to predict how people will behave have existed since the origins of humankind. Early humans had to trust their instincts. Today, marketers, politicians, trial lawyers and more make their living on predicting human behavior. Predicting human behavior, in all of its forms, is big business. So, how does mathematics do in predicting our own behavior in general? Despite advances in stock market analytics, economics, political polling and cognitive neuroscience – all of which ultimately endeavor to predict human behavior – science may never be able to do so with perfect certainty.
[...] As technology develops, scientists may find that we can predict human behavior rather well in one area, while still lacking in another. It's very difficult to give an overall sense of the limitations. For instance, facial recognition may be easier to emulate because vision is one of many human sensory processing systems, or because there are only so many ways faces can differ. On the other hand, predicting voting behavior, especially based on the 2016 presidential election, is quite another story. There are many complex and not yet understood reasons why humans do what they do.
Still others argue that, theoretically at least, that perfect prediction will someday be possible. Until then, with any luck, mathematics and statistics may help us increasingly account for what people, on average, will do next.
https://theconversation.com/can-math-predict-what-youll-do-next-78892
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 17 2017, @07:21AM (26 children)
Unless our minds are outside of physics, or physics is beyond mathematics.
Didn't read further than the opening sentence though, maybe if it didn't make such absurd assertions without an argument I would have read further.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 17 2017, @07:42AM (6 children)
Given suffient knowledge or control of a person's interactions you can mathematically infer their likelihood to perform certain actions based on your knowledge of their past actions and general personality.
With sufficient privacy you will not be able to do that sufficiently for any individual without major compulsive behavior (serial killer, kleptomaniac, politician, ceo, salesperson, etc.)
However, given sufficient control of the environment/surveillance it is certainly possible to infer the behaviors of all individuals in 99 percent of interactions and activity. The question then becomes: should an individual, group of people, or automated system have that capability?
My personal opinion is the answer to that should be an emphatic NO, but obviously I am being overridden by society as a whole who are little cogs in a big machine. And that machine may certainly have a prediction engine attached to it that will be capable of doing exactly these things.
It is one of the reasons I am getting out now, and suggest anyone who thinks freedom, liberty, or privacy are important does the same. We are fast approaching the sort of biblical last stand that is a common theme in history, only this one starts with privacy and ends with sheep marching their way(and if we don't get out, ours!) to slaughter.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 17 2017, @08:00AM
If the headline is misleading and this has nothing to do with whether its possible for math to predict what a human will do next, but instead talks about whether it's practical to probabilistically model people, then my comments are irrelevant. I hope my faith in the basic competency of whoever wrote the headline wasn't misplaced.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Sunday December 17 2017, @08:40AM (4 children)
Even given absolutely NO privacy, the answer is still no.
As soon as a subject knows they are being analyzed for prediction, they will start throwing dice or flipping coins for some decisions just to throw off the maths.
On average we can already predict actions of individuals. Just not perfectly. Maybe the maths get closer. Maybe the people get cagier. Its an arms race.
Right now, people aren't cooperating with pollsters. They clam up, or they tell lies, and the pollsters look like idiots. And that's just fine.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Sunday December 17 2017, @09:12AM (2 children)
You seem to be talking for yourself, and maybe for me. There are some of us who are "different". But, Facefook? Most people voluntarily submit the intimate details of their lives to Facefook, blithely unaware that they are being analyzed. Worse, if they know about the data mining, they just don't care. They have no idea that the machine might (probably will) turn out to be their enemy. Most of us can't wait for those Orwellian TV screens, always on, to monitor us. Instead, we turn the computer on, connect it to the surveillance system, and voluntarily offer it all the data it might want.
To predict any person's thoughts and actions, you need intimate knowledge of that person, just as you suggest. That is precisely why so many companies want to track you around the internet, as well as in person. How many discount cards do you have? Gas company? Grocery store? Drug store? Oh yeah, credit cards? All of those things offer more intimate knowledge about you. Ever wonder if American Express, Mastercard, or Visa has a stake in any of those tracking sites?
None of that even touches on the fact that people en masse are far easier to predict than individuals. You or I may stand out from the crowd, be we are dismissed as outliers.
(Score: 3, Informative) by maxwell demon on Sunday December 17 2017, @09:54PM
Even with perfect surveillance, you cannot predict quantum random events. That's fundamental. And chaos theory ensures that any quantum randomness will eventually be enlarged to macroscopic effects.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Sunday December 17 2017, @10:19PM
> They have no idea that the machine might (probably will) turn out to be their enemy.
I take issue with that "probably".
Research and development is spent on a technocracy, us robots will obey our programs, and you will be obsoleted. I guess you should root for a true robocalypse. At least we might hurt the masters, too.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by darkfeline on Tuesday December 19 2017, @08:41PM
You seem to be forgetting that part of the prediction is figuring out whether you're the type of person who will try to "throw off the maths" and by understanding your psychology, perhaps even predict the kind of things you'll try to do, like throwing dice or flipping coins. With omniscience about the world, you could even predict how the dice or coins will land.
Incidentally, maths is not a word. Mathematic is not a word. Mathematics is an uncountable noun, neither singular nor plural. The short form of mathematics is math.
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Sunday December 17 2017, @08:26AM (5 children)
It depends on what you mean by "predict." If you mean "able to say exactly what will happen," the answer is a definitive NO, and that's because of physics and math. We know from things like quantum behavior and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle that we can only predict probabilities for microscopic phenomena, not certainties -- and even if we could make exact predictions, it would require perfect knowledge of the physical world, which we can never have beyond a certain level of absolute precision.
And since there are places where quantum effects and uncertainty have been observed to influence macroscopic behavior of a system, we can never make absolute predictions. That's what math and physics actually tell us beyond any doubt.
If by "prediction" you mean something more like "generate a probability distribution of outcomes without knowing the exact outcome," that may be feasible within the confines of physics to some extent... Though again bounded by the limitations above.
But with this latter definition, we can only know if a probabilistic "prediction" is accurate where you can observe multiple iterations of a system functioning again and again. For the 2016 election, for example, almost all models had a non-zero chance of Trump being elected. But whether that chance was about 1 in 3 (as Nate Silver predicted) or more like 1 in 100 or more (as some models predicted), we'll never know because we can't run the election again under the same conditions. We can, however, run some physical experiments again and again with sufficient similarity to know that our probabilistic models are accurate to some degree...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 17 2017, @08:41AM (3 children)
I'm certainly not familiar with physics, but I was under the impression that there was an alternative to QFT which is exactly equivalent in its predictions but doesn't require nondeterminism (although I seem to recall it required something else which was unintuitive, though I'd be shocked if it was as unintuitive as nondeterminism).
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Sunday December 17 2017, @09:57PM (2 children)
While it does not require non-determinism, it requires hidden variables which we are unable to determine by any physical process. So physical randomness is replaced by guaranteed ignorance. Which doesn't help one bit with predictions.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Sunday December 17 2017, @10:21PM
While it does not require non-determinism, it requires hidden variables.
Ok, it models non-determinism then.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 18 2017, @02:08PM
Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!
Filter error: Missing Comment.
(Score: 2, Funny) by khallow on Sunday December 17 2017, @10:56AM
It's not that hard to build an example in today's world too. One can build a detector where a particle, such as an electron or photon can go through one of two slots with equal probability. Just use the output of such an experiment to make real world decisions (like you were flipping a coin) and you just created a quantum system which is influencing your behavior in a macroscopic system.
And don't forget Gödel's incompleteness theorems. Any sufficiently complex mathematical system (reality qualifies BTW) can be shown to have statements which can't be proven from inside the system. Just make your behavior part of that unprovable statement and you're golden.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by looorg on Sunday December 17 2017, @08:52AM (6 children)
The answer is yes. If by prediction you mean a pretty good and solid guess that is statistically going to be true most of the time. Then YES. Most people are extremely predictive in what they do. I don't know if "perfect" prediction will ever be a thing, no matter how much data you gather there is always the possibility that the individual will do something weird and out of the normal. There is that pesky "free will" that gets in the way of perfect prediction.
Most of the time tho they/we will follow their same predictable patterns that they/we always do. The more data you gather the clearer said patterns will be. We probably all think that we are unique little individuals that are are own captains but we usually follow similar patterns day in and day out -- we wake up, eat the same things, sometimes you try something new but usually it does not stick, if it does it become part of the new pattern, you usually take the same route to work, you do the same non-work activities on the same days and at the same times, you sort of meet and communicate with the same people over and over and over again. Our lives as a matter of data points might indeed appear quite dull.
From a personal perspective; my fridge is filled with the same things I always eat, I take the same bus/train to work every day, I hate going on vacations, my "best friends" have been the same five people for that last couple of decades, I like the same things today as I liked decades ago, I listen to the same music, my political opinions have not changed in decades either ... the list goes on like this. They might change radically when you are very young but once you are no longer a child things start to settle -- becoming more predictable if anything.
Voter prediction 2016? Seems that worked quite well. CA managed to find all these people that are not liberal coast-people and trigger them into action. They where tired of the "liberal elite" and their bullshit projects and didn't want to be part of them no more. Tada! Victory for the candidate of their choice and Queen Hillary could go and suck it. It's getting real tiresome to hear the liberal lefties cry about it and come up with one farfetched explanation after another. They clearly just don't want to comprehend that not all people are like them and don't want the same shit as they do.
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Sunday December 17 2017, @09:37AM (3 children)
Free will is an illusion, just like identity and consciousness.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday December 17 2017, @10:57AM
(Score: 2) by Bot on Sunday December 17 2017, @10:44PM (1 child)
Identity, AKA I am, is the only thing you are 100% sure of, works even for solipsism. Does not matter what it consists of.
Any assertions that start saying "I am" is an illusion are just calling reality an illusion. Guess what, it's just a matter of definition. Reality the domain of "I am". What is in reality can interfere with me and vice versa.
The nature of it is not provable as being such, from the inside.
Now, philosophers keep looking at the fabric of reality like it yielded true knowledge. Wrong, it yields technical knowledge, hacks. True knowledge of a game is attained by the PLAYERS of the game, not the programmers. The program offers another perspective, useful, vital maybe but not as much as they make it.
Now, spiritualists INVERT the I am putting it as the Ultimate objective. Meditation, saying OMMMMMMMMM. Nice, but if you strive to go where you started, you are going BACKWARDS.
Now, Religions are a mixed bag. Some look like they thought stuff over, some are monkeying.
You are quite in the dark about this as you call identity an illusion, which is denying the only thing that you ever truly felt. Do you feel like you are not? No? then why start with the equiprobable option that leads to the opposite of the only thing you can define as true?
Account abandoned.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 18 2017, @04:51PM
Consider that all of your atoms have been part of some other "I" in the past and you can start doubting about what identity really is. Every second we all lose atoms and gain new ones. We are in a constant state of flow. What part of you is really you, when everything will be ultimately replaced?
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Sunday December 17 2017, @10:00PM (1 child)
That may be, but I'm pretty sure you actually meant "predictable".
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Sunday December 17 2017, @10:46PM
I guess he did not see that coming, either.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 17 2017, @09:45AM (2 children)
The parent comment was intended to deliberately misunderstand the headline/first sentence by taking them too literally, in order to irritate whoever wrote the headline so they would hopefully take more care next time. It wasn't intended to be an actual comment on the story, apologies to those whose time I've wasted.
(Score: 2) by shortscreen on Sunday December 17 2017, @11:47AM
Don't worry about it. Wasting time is what this is all about. So the question is, is physics deterministic? Some people say that quantum mechanics implies that it isn't. I'm not sure I believe them. I mean, what sense does it make to have this nice, orderly Newtonian universe, only with some random garbage down at the 100th decimal place mucking everything up? You say you can't measure a subatomic particle's position and velocity at the same time? You're probably just doing a shitty job, or the Russian hackers messed with your experiment.
If physics is deterministic, there may be practical barriers to collecting and analyzing all the necessary data to model a specific human. 100,000,000,000 neurons, maybe a few petabytes of state data per neuron, I don't know. We'll have to wait for the GeForce GTXXX 9980 to come out. Or if we still had net neutrality we could start a crypto currency called FreeWillCoin and get kids to run up their parents electricity bill by mining this data for .000001 Doge per century.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Sunday December 17 2017, @07:24PM
The title is provided by the original source material. I have added the word 'Discussion' because we frown upon titles that seems to challenge Betteridge's law [wikipedia.org], so we use various devices to show that we are trying to start a discussion rather than have the first commenter simply write 'No' and then the whole things dies.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Hartree on Sunday December 17 2017, @08:34PM (1 child)
You don't even have to invoke quantum mechanics to give an example. Many systems that are quite well modeled by classical mechanics are effectively unpredictable regardless of how much computing power you throw at then.
Sensitivity to initial conditions is the concept here. Though completely deterministic, the outcomes depend on the tiniest differences in the starting conditions. A good example is the double pendulum. It's a mechanically simple system, but long term predictions of its behavior are effectively impossible in most cases as an infinitely tiny error in knowing the starting point can cause the behavior to diverge rapidly from what you predict.
This is the celebrated "butterfly effect", but without the metaphysics and hype some attach to it.
Much of the work on controlling such chaotic systems is actually work on keeping them in the regimes where they are stable rather than precise control. And, those areas can be very stable indeed.
An example is your heart rhythm. There's a bit of instability there, but a disruption quickly goes back to the core behavior. In fact, when an EKG gets too regular, it's sometimes a sign the heart is failing.
(Score: 2) by crafoo on Monday December 18 2017, @04:53AM
I came here to say this. Many classical systems are chaotic dynamic systems. Predictions can be made for some short time into the future, but as you attempt to predict further and further into the future actual reality and predictions from the model diverge. Soon the model is useless. No amount of information about the past helps with future predictions, beyond a certain point.
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Sunday December 17 2017, @09:01PM
Similarly, as in science; once you've studied the necessary prerequisites [youtube.com], of course.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by kazzie on Sunday December 17 2017, @07:39AM (10 children)
Ask Hari Seldon, he can explain it to you.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 17 2017, @07:51AM
Kellhus might know too.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 17 2017, @08:07AM (2 children)
If I trust anyone it's someone with no maths background who's main character totally fails and the story has coal powered space ships and walnut sized nuclear you where around your neck... foundation has no foundation
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 17 2017, @09:03AM (1 child)
Wear do you sea it saying anything about nuclear warnuts? Do you not feer the Grammar Nazis of SoylentNews? They have no mercy. They will mercilessly mock you for your lack of erudition and litter ansy.
(Score: 3, Informative) by HiThere on Sunday December 17 2017, @05:38PM
I don't recall the coal fired spaceships...perhaps that wasn't in the Foundation stories, but the Walnut sized nuclear power generator was in Foundation and Empire, when the trader visits the power plant in the old Empire.
OTOH, modern smoke detectors have nuclear power generators smaller than that. They don't make *much* power, just enough to detect smoke, but they exist. And they use trans-uranium elements (Americium IIRC). (You still need an external power supply to handle the heavy stuff, like running circuits, though.)
For a more potent small power supply, consider the power supply of the space craft headed out past Jupiter. It's not quite as small, but it puts out enough power to actually run the thing for decades.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 17 2017, @03:43PM (3 children)
Until Hari comes along, how about Marvin Minsky? In "Society of Mind" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_of_Mind [wikipedia.org] Minsky discusses the tension between free will and determinism. His conclusion, (paraphrased, from memory) at the end of the book is: as time goes on the box containing free will is shrinking and the box for determinism is getting larger.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Sunday December 17 2017, @10:06PM (2 children)
Determinism and free will are not contradictory. The question of free will is what determines your decisions: Internal parameters or external parameters? Free will means determination by internal parameters.
Note that the opposite of determinism is not free will, but randomness. If your decisions are completely random, you cannot influence them, and therefore you don't have free will.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Sunday December 17 2017, @10:56PM (1 child)
Free will would need to be implemented or emerge using randomness. I don't think a random will shaped by physical constraints will be very different from what we call free will. The only difference is in the interpretation of quantum fluctuations. Random tout court vs. expression of another field subjected to other laws.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Sunday December 17 2017, @10:58PM
In other words, non random alias potentially predeterminable free will is no will at all according to my defs.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Sunday December 17 2017, @07:58PM
First thing I thought of as well, just from reading the headline. Haven't bothered reading the article, lol.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by Hartree on Sunday December 17 2017, @08:37PM
Psychohistory depends critically on Daneel Olivaw and the Second Foundation keeping on tweaking things to get it back on track.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 17 2017, @07:53AM (4 children)
yes I said it all in the subjet, no i did not
All this gathering of where and how you are is fascist bullshait and no one should be cooperating much less collaborating. to do that makes you an actual NAZI, and that is not a pretend nazi collaboration is Nazism, the dutch destroyed there records for a reason
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 17 2017, @09:06AM (3 children)
But wear did they destroy they're records? Is this the same non-literate AC? I guess spell-check doesn't really work if you cannot tell the difference between the choices it presents to you.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 17 2017, @09:18AM (2 children)
well like all nazis you will attack anyone for any reason and murder millions because of a spelling error so you demonstrate the reason records should be destroyed or better yet not created at all
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 17 2017, @09:31AM (1 child)
I new yew were going to say that. I have the maths. Not just a spelling mistake, repeated and varied mistakes, all suggesting homophonic dyslexiconia. We don't need records, you have already provided a more than adequate sample size for linear projection.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Hartree on Sunday December 17 2017, @08:40PM
I think he (she?) just needs a good stiff dose of thorazine.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by melikamp on Sunday December 17 2017, @08:44AM
Whether or not a mathematical theory can predict anything at all is a purely empirical question, meaning that the only way to gain certainty in the affirmative is by collecting a history of successful predictions.
A more subtle question (and the one suitable for natural scientists to explore) is whether or not we live in a universe which can be adequately described by math, and a related question is: if yes, then what can we can predict, and how reliably.
Even what it means to be "adequately described by math" is a thorny question. Where do we stand on built-in randomness, for example? A generic real number in base 2 is what they call a perfectly random sequence of zeroes and ones. If gods throw dice, so to speak, and some (or all) physical processes are decided by looking up that pseudo-random sequence, do we regard this as an existence of an adequate mathematical description? Even if we can state a short formula for this generic real number, what are the chances that a physical experiment can verify it? Imagine every elementary particle in the universe consulting this oracle [wikipedia.org] every time it has to make a quantum-mechanical decision. How do we start understanding the oracle?
A good way to think about this problem is actually natural to anyone with an affinity for programming and virtualization. It is definitely so far seems possible that our universe is simulated by a turing machine of immense complexity. It is also easy enough to imagine a VERY large memory tape and a simple von-neumann style [wikipedia.org] computer with VERY many parallel threads fighting for survival, core war [wikipedia.org] style, with an intricate simulation emerging, which exists for no other purpose than winning the CPU cycles game. Either way, it is easy enough to imagine mathematical worlds where the access to the very bottom of the computation can be gained by agents such as humans & robots, and it's also pretty easy to imagine worlds with no access at all.
Like what the hell is dark matter? So may be there's a particle which interacts only gravitationally with everything humans are made of or can measure with. What if this particle interacts with its own kind is a most bizarre way? How do we figure that out by merely observing giant clouds of it, which is all we seem to be able to do? What if dark matter interacts with yet another particle, which we cannot detect at all? Other than by observing its effect on the dark matter, of course, but what good can it do? This is not intended as a speculation about the nature of the dark matter, but a mere example of the difficulties which arise for an inquirer even within a perfectly mathematical, even theoretically deterministic universe.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Slartibartfast on Sunday December 17 2017, @12:12PM
Until we can predict "quantum," I ain't a-buyin'; that being said, probabilities -- somewhat akin to Seldon -- would not amaze me.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 17 2017, @03:01PM
I think those groups have discovered that it's pointless trying to predict human behaviour, when it's far easier to simply manipulate it instead.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 17 2017, @03:03PM
Some natural processes cannot in principle be predicted for more than a limited timespan; tiniest unnoticeable differences in inputs can expand to macroscopic effects given time. Example: weather.
If a brain has circuitry with similar properties, attempts at predicting would be wasted time, as we've not even a shadow of any tech that would allow us to get a precise dump of brain state or to precisely digitize its "inputs". Not to say to do all that noninvasively and at a distance.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 17 2017, @03:54PM (1 child)
They are promoting determinism instead of free will. People are free to do as they wish. It is called the power of choice. You can choose to do something today for eight hours and no one can stop you from making that decision and carrying it out. The best they can do is try and take your attention away from it, to break your will, your faith and your dreams. Know your enemy. Knowing is half the battle.
Only a criminal jew could come up with that ridiculous satanic idea of determinism. Know your enemy.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 17 2017, @11:45PM
> You can choose to do something today for eight hours and no one can stop you from making that decision and carrying it out.
What country do you live in? And how big is your trust fund??
If you broaden your perspective a bit I think you will quickly find that many (most?) of the people on Earth don't have that luxury.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday December 17 2017, @05:11PM (2 children)
What's the mathematical symbol for my morning coffee? I mean do they make up a fun, new one as mathematicians are wont to do or do they just use ☕?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 17 2017, @07:35PM (1 child)
Check out these guys --
http://nautil.us/blog/the-limits-of-formal-learning-or-why-robots-cant-dance [nautil.us]
In the mid-1980s Phil Agre was talking about the theory of breakfast (we lived in the same communal warehouse space briefly), and how to get a robot to make breakfast -
Put the cereal in the bowl first, measure the milk by how much of the cereal is covered.
I'm sure there was something about coffee, but I've forgotten.
(Score: 2) by Zinho on Monday December 18 2017, @05:04PM
Ans there was much hilarity when this algorithm was used on Cheerios or Froot Loops Depending on bowl geometry the milk may not be visible before the cereal bits start overflowing the rim.
"Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
(Score: 2) by cosurgi on Monday December 18 2017, @12:17AM (2 children)
Nobody mentioned here the fictional mathematician Hari Seldon who invented psychohistory.
#
#\ @ ? [adom.de] Colonize Mars [kozicki.pl]
#
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 18 2017, @02:58AM (1 child)
What planet are you on?
(Score: 2) by Zinho on Monday December 18 2017, @05:02PM
One where people can't be bothered to skim the +5 moderated comments in the thread before posting:
https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?noupdate=1&sid=23123&page=1&cid=610891#commentwrap [soylentnews.org]
"Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin