「我離港前到過一間精神科醫院。當時有位病人禮貌地問,一個以作為世上最悠久民主政體而自傲的國家,如何能夠將此地交給一個政治制度非常不同的國家,且既沒諮詢當地公民,又沒給予他們民主的前景,好讓他們捍衞自己的將來。一個隨行同事說,奇怪,香港提出最理智問題的人,竟在精神科醫院。」彭定康 金融時報

“During a visit to a mental hospital before I left Hong Kong, a patient politely asked me how a country that prided itself on being the oldest democracy in the world had come to be handing over his city to another country with a very different system of government, without either consulting the citizens or giving them the prospect of democracy to safeguard their future. Strange, said one of my aides, that the man with the sanest question in Hong Kong is in a mental hospital.”Chris Patten Financial Times

Non Chinese literate friends, please simply switch to English Version provided by LOUSY Google Translation

Please participate in the unregistered demography survey of visitors at the right hand side bar. You are: ?

敬請參與在右下方的不記名訪客分佈調查問卷,你是: ?

Thursday, March 20, 2008

博弈論 中的 囚徒困境

博弈論 中的 囚徒困境

之前幾次在網友處,提起 博弈論 中的 囚徒困境 論。










「博弈論」看來像是很高深的學問,而其中的 「囚徒困境」論好像是犯罪心理學。不過其實是把人性加以深入研究罷了。


又另有一次,已經是中一, 大家都有十二三歲, 那年當老師背著寫黑板時(其實是用Marker筆寫在百版上),全班大部份同學,互射碼子,有一隻碼子誤中老師,大乜鑊! 老師又是出『連坐』這一招,一係自首,否則全班要留堂。 大家已經十二三歲,懂得做男生要有『雷氣』,無人肯做二五仔,其實無人知道邊個射中老師,好了,老師下不了臺, 老羞成怒,放學後真的整班學生四十幾人,全班排隊去教員室罰企。

校車,保母車,白牌車,私家車司機們入來了解,發生了甚麼事,繼而通知家長,不久有部分家長們抵達,成百人塞在教員室裡面,連校長修士都驚動了,由修士樓上宿舍,落來睇下發生乜嘢事,真係慘,又要顧存老師面子,又要注重紀律,又要平釋事件,最後先放學生回家。 記得好像在期考這一科每人降一個 GRADE,但不用記過,真的還是假的無人知,亦無人續個去問,如果是真,無份射碼子的同學都幾冤枉。

博弈論(Game Theory),有時也稱為對策論,或者賽局理論,電影
A Beautiful Mind (film), 根據 A Beautiful Mind (book) 』本書拍成,就是講 博弈宗師,一九九四年 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences Winner 諾貝爾獎 得獎者,John Nash 的經歷,阿尊一九二八年生,尚還在世。

人生本來就是一場博弈,選擇和被選擇,互相交替,成與敗,得或失,就像玩遊戲 Game 一場, 尚未釘蓋,都未能有最後定論!



微豆兄 提出 Plea Bargaining 這個 Topic 與 囚徒困境 的博弈類同,但因為有了減刑的誘因,可以胡亂說謊把無辜的人拉入案件,增加自己的減刑機會。

【維基百科】Plea bargaining in the United States is very common; the vast majority of criminal cases in the United States are settled by plea bargain rather than by a jury trial.

They have also been increasing in frequency—they rose from 84% of federal cases in 1984 to 94% by 2001. Plea bargains are subject to the approval of the court, and different States and jurisdictions have different rules. Game theory has been used to analyze the plea bargaining decision.

The constitutionality of plea bargaining was established by Brady v. United States in 1970, although the Supreme Court warned that plea incentives which were sufficiently large or coercive as to over-rule defendants' abilities to act freely, or used in a manner giving rise to a significant number of innocent people pleading guilty, might be prohibited or lead to concerns over constitutionality. Santobello v. New York added that when plea bargains are broken, legal remedies exist.

Several features of the American justice system tend to promote plea bargaining. The adversarial nature of the system puts judges in a passive role, in which they are completely dependent upon the parties to develop the factual record and cannot independently discover information with which to assess the strength of the case against the defendant.

The parties thus can control the outcome of the case by exercising their rights or bargaining them away. The lack of compulsory prosecution also gives prosecutors greater discretion. And the inability of crime victims to mount a private prosecution and their limited ability to influence plea agreements also tends to encourage plea bargaining. Prosecutors have been described as monopsonists.

The shadow-of-trial argument states that plea agreements merely reflect the outcome that would have transpired had the case gone to trial. For example, if the accused faces 10 years and has a 50% chance of losing in court, then an agreement will result in a five-year sentence, less some amount deducted for saving the government the cost of trial.

Theoretically, the shadow-of-trial should work even better in criminal cases than in civil cases, because civil judgments are discretionary, while criminal judgments are often regulated by mandatory minima and sentencing guidelines, making sentences more predictable.

A counter-argument is that criminal sentencing laws are "lumpy", in that the sentencing ranges are not as precise as the dollars-and-cents calibration that can be achieved in civil case settlements. Furthermore, because some defendants facing small amounts of prison time are jailed pending trial, they may find it in their interests to plead guilty so as to be sentenced to time served, or in any event to end up serving less time than they would serve waiting for trial.

Outcomes in criminal cases are also made less predictable by the fact that, while a plaintiff in a civil case has a financial incentive to seek the largest judgment possible, a prosecutor does not necessarily have an incentive to pursue the most severe sentence possible.

The United States Supreme Court has recognized plea bargaining as both an essential and desirable part of the criminal justice system. The benefits of plea-bargaining are said to be obvious: the relief of court congestion, alleviation of the risks and uncertainties of trial, and its information gathering value.

However, in 1975 the Attorney-General of Alaska, Avrum Gross, ordered an end to all plea-bargaining; subsequent attorneys-general continued the practice. Similar consequences were observed in New Orleans, Ventura County, California, and in Oakland County, Michigan, where plea bargaining has been terminated.

Some legal scholars argue that plea bargaining is unconstitutional because it takes away a person's right to a trial by jury. In fact, Justice Hugo Black once noted that, in America, the defendant “has an absolute, unqualified right to compel the State to investigate its own case, find its own witnesses, prove its own facts, and convince the jury through its own resources. Throughout the process, the defendant has a fundamental right to remain silent, in effect challenging the State at every point to ‘Prove it!’” By limiting the powers of the police and prosecutors, the Bill of Rights safeguards freedom.

Plea bargaining is also criticized, particularly outside the United States, on the grounds that its close relationship with rewards, threats and coercion potentially endangers the correct legal outcome.

The theoretical work based on the prisoner's dilemma is one reason why, in many countries, plea bargaining is forbidden. Often, precisely the prisoner's dilemma scenario applies: it is in the interest of both suspects to confess and testify against the other suspect, irrespective of the innocence of the accused. Arguably, the worst case is when only one party is guilty—here, the innocent one is unlikely to confess, while the guilty one is likely to confess and testify against the innocent.

It has been argued that plea bargaining benefits society by ensuring that the guilty are not acquitted.

Another argument against plea bargaining is that it may not actually reduce the costs of administering justice. For example, if a prosecutor has only a 25% chance of winning his case and sending the defendant away to prison for 10 years, he may make a plea agreement for a one-year sentence; but if plea bargaining is unavailable, he may drop the case completely.

除了犯人可以用利用 Plea Bargaining 換取較短刑期,有時也會無辜被冤枉的可以被帶上法庭,牽涉入內的人要經過經年的法律程序,又要延聘律師付出金錢時間心力,家庭事業受到不必要的影響,最終才可以打甩罪名。

近日 嗜悲 追看一套 朝日電視的日劇:天使與惡魔 日文:天使 と 惡魔

故事:天使 と 惡魔

天使 と 惡魔 司法取引 預告片 TV Asahi

唔做二五仔! 新鮮人


Wednesday, March 19, 2008



英美聯軍進攻伊拉克 五週年前夕,無線新聞有以下報導。

TVB News:伊拉克戰爭五周年前夕,美國總統喬治布殊重申,出兵正確。

看TVB新聞片段點擊上圖 或 看片


伊拉克戰爭 不經不覺,已經五年了。 是非、功過,留返畀歷史學家去評定!

請看看 這個 CNN 網頁,聯軍死亡數字,至于伊拉克人民的傷亡數字,我找不到!

As at March 19th 2008:
There have been 4,297 coalition deaths -- 3,990 Americans, two Australians, 175 Britons, 13 Bulgarians, one Czech, seven Danes, two Dutch, two Estonians, one Fijian, one Hungarian, 33 Italians, one Kazakh, one Korean, three Latvian, 22 Poles, three Romanians, five Salvadoran, four Slovaks, 11 Spaniards, two Thai and 18 Ukrainians -- in the war in Iraq as of March 19, 2008, according to a CNN count. (Graphical breakdown of casualties).

Tuesday, March 18, 2008

Horton and Dr. Seuss

Horton and Dr. Seuss

突然間提起 Horton 和 Dr. Seuss, 可能各位莫名其妙,但再睇埋下面幅圖,很多朋友會記得,年幼時,年長時,成年後,都曾經睇過聽過讀過,『大笨象孵蛋』的圖書和故事。

Horton Hatches the egg 圖片 維基百科

Horton Hatches the egg 大笨象 Horton,遇見鳥媽媽在孵蛋,答應了為鳥媽媽代為照顧鳥蛋一會兒, 好讓鳥媽媽辦點小事。 但鳥媽媽卻一去不回,飛到老遠的地方渡假。

可憐好心的大笨象 Horton,見鳥媽媽很久都不回來, 為了怕鳥蛋着涼,就爬上鳥巢孵着鳥蛋。 天要下雨 Horton 都不肯離開,下大雪 Horton 都不肯離開,森林裡的朋友恥笑 Horton 都不肯離開,獵人用槍指着, Horton 都不忍心離開鳥蛋。

獵人都很奇怪,就把 Horton、鳥巢、鳥蛋, 一概運到城市裡展覽。 這時鳥媽媽剛巧經過看到,就向 Horton 取回鳥巢鳥蛋,Horton 正要離開時,鳥蛋破開,一隻『小飛象』破蛋而出。 鳥媽媽失望地離開了,獵人就把 『大笨象 Horton』和『小飛象』,送回森林裡,好好生活!

年幼時啲 uncle auntie 知我愛書,就送了不少中外圖書給我, 記憶還有下面的一本Horton hears a WHO

Horton hears a WHO! 圖片 維基百科


查起 Yahoo movies 荷里活把 Horton Hears a WHO! 拍成了動畫電影,即將推出,

故事比上面的『大笨象孵蛋』深奧,是講環保的故事,小孩子可能不會明白,記憶中我年幼時,亦祇是一知半解,比較愛聽 『Horton Hatches the egg』 個故仔多啲!

原裝Dr. Seuss' Horton Hears a WhoJim CarreySteve Carell 負責配音。

Yahoo movie Trailers & Clips 三月十四日已經上映。

而香港譯名為『大象亞鈍救細界』的粵語版,則有 陳輝虹 葛民輝

故事說 大笨象 Horton 今次在森林閑蕩時,聽到一些聲音,他偏找不及,原來聲音是發自一粒漂浮著的

The Story:
One day, Horton the Elephant hears a cry for help coming from a speck of dust. Even though he cannot see anyone on the speck, he decides to help. As it turns out, the speck of dust is home to the Whos, who live in their city of Whoville.

Horton assumes the responsibility of protecting the Whos and their home. However, this brings him nothing but torment from some of his neighbors, who refuse to believe that anything could survive on a tiny speck of dust.

One of them, Sour Kangaroo, is determined to destroy the speck and its supposed inhabitants, even invoking the aid of an eagle hitman and the unsavory Wickersham Brothers to carry out her dirty work.


電影頗受歡迎,是學校提早放復活節假期,還是同期沒有較好的兒童電影,見到都幾多家長,帶埋小朋友來看『大象亞鈍救細界』。 不過睇『粵語版』的家長,相信會需要少啲要解畫,但都有一些觀眾是帶埋小朋友,看原裝『英語版』的。

故事是很正面的用簡單情節,試圖去講地球其實是很脆弱的,就如我在舊文獅子與羔羊~地球的四季,中提及過。 若果地球環繞太陽的公轉軌跡,畧為太近或太遠,地球的氣候就會重大轉變。 太近就會太熱,造成乾旱,太遠就會太冷,進入冰河時期。


『阿鈍』決心要把『微世界』送到安全的地方, 期間有『袋鼠太太』代表的『正義良心』,硬說『阿鈍』在妖言惑眾,教壞細路,要『阿鈍』發表聲明『認錯』。『袋鼠太太』又發動森林裡的動物阻撓,『阿鈍』的拯救行動,就因為咁,微塵大小的『微世界』,經歷了,沒日,強風,雪暴,洪水,地震,等等災難。


畫工很細緻不在講,這是得到科技之助,編劇都應記一功,把簡單故事豐富起來,成為有百分鐘的動畫電影。配音方面,有幾位荷里活大明星,但覺得有乜分別呢? 不過起碼他們在背後,我唔使睇埋他們面孔。 整個電影很流暢,沒有悶場,主題正確,值得捧場。



『粵語版』由 陳輝虹 和 葛民輝 負責配音,沒有看到,不敢評論。 不過就以前看過其他的『粵語配音』,都很令人失望,市井俚語,電視時興語,乜都出齊,扭曲原意,慘不忍睹忍聽,以後再也不敢,重韜覆轍,敬謝不憫!

Charlotte's Web 莎樂的神奇網網

Monday, March 17, 2008



看TVB新聞片段點擊上圖 或 看片

呢單嘢,攪到『小馬哥』幾度九十度鞠躬 道歉 。選情轉壞,形勢急轉,宣告告急。

四條『馬騮』畀 吳伯雄拉出來,向公眾道歉有鬼用,還有一個話要『退黨』添, 咁就會唔關『國民黨』事咩?



可以由獨立人士出面調查,哈哈哈 香港咪好中意,做獨立調查報告,『國民黨』可用來借鏡,調查報告可需時很久,亦可以很快,起碼攪出一個另外『說法』,轉移焦點,就『小馬哥』需要而定。



如果是自己人,不想『小馬哥』當選,而唆使四位立委借故生事,想插『小馬哥』背後一刀,咁起碼都令『馬營』,多作防備,選完之後,再清洗掉『四個龜蛋』 和幕後黑手。


傳媒話『兩粒子彈 和 四個笨蛋』,就斷送了『國民黨人』,兩次當選總統的機會。


明報社評 2008年3月16日










Sunday, March 16, 2008

選舉人票 ~ 通吃制

選舉人票 ~ 通吃制


自認為世界上最民主的美國,是用一種比例的制度,平衡各州的人口,結構,經濟,貢獻,各方面的利益,叫做『選舉人票』 制度, 原名叫作
”Electoral College“ 制來普選總統。



美國有五十個州和一個府,各州分別用不同的投票方式,有啲用人手的選票,有啲用電腦選票,記得2000年,小布薯仔的第一任競選,他和當時 克林頓 的 副總統 戈爾 競爭總統,就在佛羅里達州,結下難解的結,佛州用刺針刺穿孔,來選擇支持者,攪到差啲憲法大危機,不贅!

好了,言歸正傳,在選舉當天,在每個州的層面,確是一人一票,得簡單大多數票的候選人勝出。好了勝出的一方,就全取整個州的 electoral『選舉人票』 赢家通吃 the winner-takes-all system ,而不是按比例分配『選舉人票』,(祇两個小州:缅因州(4張選舉人票) 和 内布拉斯加州
(5張選舉人票) 除外)。

再者為平衡每個州的人口經濟貢獻等等,每個州的『選舉人票』 是不同的,加利福利亞州(55),德薩斯州(34),紐約州(31),佛羅里達州(27),等等大州最多,而一些經濟落後,人口稀少的小州,選舉人票就較少了 (見下圖)。

2008年選舉人票分佈圖:就算贏出十個祇得3張、4張、5張選舉人票的州份,都不及勝出加利福尼亞州,共有55張選舉人票 (圖片來源:維基百科)

因為以上的安排, 『選舉人票』的制度,結果會出現,在全國得票最多的票,卻不是勝出當總統的候選人,勝出最多州份的,也不是勝出當總統的候選人。 請看以下圖解:

因此『紅方』勝出 (圖片來源:維基百科)

更甚者,在『赢家通吃』的情況下,一方就算拿到全國較多數選票,同一方就算勝出較多『選舉人票』較少的州份,但加加埋都不及另一方,勝出一個『選舉人票』 較多的一個大州份,若不能夠勝出『選舉人票』多的州份,贏幾多選票也是徒然,都要落敗,接受失敗現實,乖乖地宣佈『認輸 Conceded』!!!

財爺派錢民望急升,比特首的還要高,網友 新鮮人寫了篇文章,質疑:
『香港人嘅識別能力有多少, 更好擔心將來有雙普選時會變成點』。


在2017年普選直選,香港的首席行政長官,應否效法美國『選舉人票 Electoral College』通吃制哩?

明報 2008-03-13 論壇 中大政治與行政學系高級導師 蔡子強
提及『選舉人票 Electoral College』制度,即「勝者囊括制」
(winner-takes-all system),會左右選情。(以下是他的文章)

繼1月8日在新罕布什爾州中以淚水絕地反勝;2月5日「超級星期二」在加州、紐約幾個大州中穩住陣腳;3月4日又成了這位Comeback Gal(打不死女郎)的第三個「大奇蹟日」,本來命懸一線的希拉里,在事前民調看淡的情況下,在關鍵的俄亥俄州和得克薩斯州之初選中,同時絕處縫生,再次顯示其打不死韌力。

一洗頹風的希拉里,在其祝捷演說中信心百倍的說:「You know what they say, as Ohio goes, so goes the nation.」(你知大家怎樣說,贏得俄亥俄,就贏得美國)





更重要、更關鍵的是,第二,在游離州份(Swing States)中兩人的實力對比。美國總統大選採用的是「勝者囊括制」(winner-takes-all system) ,換句話說,即使你在加州只贏多過對手1張直選票,你都可以一次過拿走55張的選舉人票。8年前小布殊就是如此,在佛羅里達以幾百票力克戈爾,全奪25張選舉人票,搶走總統寶座。







自從 2008年總統選舉後,美國各州的選舉人票都有隨著人口變化而增減,請看看下圖吧!加州沒有變仍然是最多的 55張,但佛羅里達州由 27 增加到 29,德薩斯州 34 增至 38,俄核俄州就由 20 減到 18,紐約州 31 減到 29,其他都是加減都 1張上落。

Electoral votes by state/federal district for the elections of 2012, 2016 and 2020, with apportionment changes between the 2000 and 2010 Censuses (Source: wikipedia)

Electoral College (United States) 維基百科
選舉人團的制度 維基百科