On Wikipedia it says if you talk and your buddy doesn't, you go free and he gets ten years. If neither of you talk, you both get six months. And if you both talk you each get five years.

Nobody likes a tattletale.

I spit upon Macy's.

I haven't shopped at Macy's since they bought Rich's and put on the Macy's name. The Marshall Fields thing just made me madder. When I get mad, I stay mad. I haven't bought gas from Exxon since the Exxon Valdez spill.

You guys know how to carry it. How West Baltimore of y'all. Of course that's also why somebody got a big laugh on The Wire for saying "If terrorists attacked the Western District, could anybody tell?"ETA: Usually "Your buddy told us everything," is a big lie. Not as big as "We just want to hear *your side*, though. They never want to hear your side.

Huh, that's the opposite of the way I know it.

Ephesians, those are the guys that always lie. Unless I am being wrong again.

It should probably be pointed out that if not talking results in some mob boss going free, and talking results in you getting whacked, then your best option is a little different.

I like mothra. I mean OK, he's no Gamera but still.

Frank can make you say anything.

I haven't bought gas from Exxon since the Exxon Valdez spill.

Me neither. I may have been forced to once, on a road trip when nothing else was around and it was either buy gas from Exxon or start living in my out-of-gas car in Borax, CA, but I didn't want to.

Okay, but if you know that if you both keep quiet, you walk, then why would your buddy talk?

No, if you both keep quiet, you both get a short sentence.

Oh. Well, I was basing my confusion on the original description of it, which said that if you both keep quiet, you both walk: -t "Natter 58: Let's call Venezuela!" Apr 8, 2008 12:22:06 pm PDT

Okay, this is from Scola's post:

Two suspects, A and B, are arrested by the police. The police have insufficient evidence for a conviction, and, having separated both prisoners, visit each of them to offer the same deal: if one testifies for the prosecution against the other and the other remains silent, the betrayer goes free and the silent accomplice receives the full 10-year sentence. If both remain silent, both prisoners are sentenced to only six months in jail for a minor charge. If each betrays the other, each receives a five-year sentence. Each prisoner must make the choice of whether to betray the other or to remain silent. However, neither prisoner knows for sure what choice the other prisoner will make. So this dilemma poses the question: How should the prisoners act?

If I recall correctly, this is a game theory example and one of the basic concepts of game theory is that every "player" acts almost exclusively in his own self-interest. The most common outcome, then, is that each would receive a five-year sentence, as both have striven to get the freedom promised by betrayal.

The ideal outcome is that they each receive the six-month sentence for remaining silent, as that is the outcome dictated by every player acting in concert according to enlightened self-interest; i.e. what is the best achievable goal for ALL players, not just the individual.

I think.