- George Loewenstein has extensively written about the motivation of mountain climbers and their appreciation of risk.

- Can you spot the discrepancy here?

He was a generous, loving guy – the family came first for him. He adored his two children, and he spent as much time as he could with them. It’s just a shame he’s not going to get to meet the third. [...]

John was a passionate adventurer that loved challenge and mountains.

- The summit of Mount Everest is in the ‘death zone‘.

- The dark side of mountain climbing. – [WARNING: HORRIFIC PICTURES.]

- ChE @ Marginal Revolution:

pulmonary or cerebral edema (HAPE or HACE) [] are two of the most common killers on Everest.”

- Paul Deba @ Business Insider:

The child will grow up without a father because ” he financially committed to the trip” which has a 10-20% of mortality. That’s not a commitment, a child is a commitment, a child that doesn’t have to wonder why their father chose a risky, low reward stunt rather than getting to know them and bring them up for the next 18 years.

- Jim @ Freakonomics:

I can’t possibly imagine leaving my wife to attempt one of the most dangerous feats on earth as she is ready to give birth. Even more obvious with a 2- and 3-year old at home.

I did run the Big Sur Marathon across the country with my wife 8 months pregnant with our first child. But my cellphone was at hand at all times and I was ready to head home on the next plane if necessary. I can’t imagine being both out of communication range and around the world at such a momentous occasion.

- Henning @ Hacker News:

I think it’s irresponsible to attempt something so dangerous when you have a company and a family depending on you.

- Dave J. @ Gawker:

It was not simply selfish to miss the birth of his daughter, but selfish to miss it in order to do something that was (a) really dangerous, and (b) not pressing. I mean, it’s not like you can climb Everest once every 30 years or something. He could have waited a couple months, or a year. He also saddled his wife with a lifetime of guilt–I’m sure she’ll be agonizing over how she could have kept him from going if she had really tried. Selfish, selfish, selfish.

- Bill @ Carpe Diem:

I am very sorry to hear of his death but it was incredibly irresponsible of him to take such grave and foolish risks while having a wife and very young children.

UPDATE: John Delaney’s widow is quoted here.

Previously: InTrade CEO John Delaney (42) died on May 21, 2011, while climbing Mount Everest, and his body will remain there. — [OBITUARY]

UPDATE: Robin Hanson on the mountain climbing death issue.

ADDENDUM:

NHK WORLD TV live on USTREAM.

PREVIOUSLY: The Japanese professor who predicted the nuclear disaster — [PREDICTION POST-MORTEM]

NEXT: InTrade was not able to predict anything regarding the Fukushima nuclear energy plant. — [PREDICTION POST-MORTEM]

I had warned that a major earthquake would strike the Chuetsu region around Kashiwazaki, Niigata Prefecture, and about the fundamental vulnerability of nuclear power plants.

The 6.8 magnitude temblor of July 16 caused considerable damage to the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power plant operated by Tokyo Electric Power Co. (TEPCO), proving me right.

Previously: Idiots believe in earthquake prediction markets. — [PREDICTION MARKET CHART]

UPDATE: Design flaw? More.

Previous attempts to hack the connection between wealth and power have aimed mainly at eliminating economic inequality. They’ve all ended in disaster, because economic inequality is closely related to risk: you can’t eliminate inequality without eliminating startups, and with them growth. So if you want to get rid of injustice, the place to attack is one step downstream, where wealth turns into power.

Sound bad at start. Get better later.

http://www.weatherbill.com/

Peter Diamandis:

ACCEPTING RISK:

Finally I’d like to address the issue of risk. In contrast to individuals who speak about reducing exposure to risk, I want to speak in favor of accepting more risk.

There is no question that there is risk involved in winning the X PRIZE, as well as risk in going to the moon or Mars or opening any portion of the space frontier. BUT, this is a risk worth taking!

As American many of us forget the debt we owe to early explorers. Tens-of- thousands of people risked their lives to open the ‘new world’ or the American west. Thousands lost their lives and we are here today as a result of their courage.

Space is a frontier and frontiers are risky! As explorers and as Americans, we must have the right to take risks that we believe are worthwhile and significant. We owe it to ourselves and future generations. In a time when people are risking their lives in motor sports or bungee jumping, it seems a bit shallow to be concerned about the risk involved exploring space.

It is also critical that we take risk in our technology development and that we allow for failure. Without risk and without room for failure we can not have the very breakthroughs we so desperately need.

A breakthrough, by definition, is something that was considered a “crazy idea” the day before it became a breakthrough. If it wasn’t considered a crazy idea, then it really isn’t a breakthrough, is it? It would have simply been an incremental improvement.

Remember those immortal words, “Failure is not an option?” If we live and work in an environment where we cannot fail, than breakthroughs may not be an option either.

I urge both this Committee and NASA to take steps which will help the American people understand that space exploration is intrinsically risky, yet a risk worth taking. Let’s make space explorers heroes once again.

1. Joe says that there can’t be hedging in politics. Wrong. You can hedge your political ads on InTrade.
2. Joe says that there can’t be hedging in sports. Wrong. Businesses that operate inside a stadium could hedge the risk of the home team losing (which means less business for them).

So. why does the CFTC shy away from hedging on sports and politics? –> Politics. The CFTC is afraid of the US Congress, who would object to politics and sports “gambling”.

The CFTC is a weak institution, in the DC sphere of power. In the recent past, the CFTC lost one important battle against other parts of the US government —even though it was the CFTC that was on the right side of the issue at the time. With politics and sports betting, the CFTC does not want to lose another battle. It is a question of survival.

The applicants (Bernard L. Bilski and Rand Warsaw) filed a patent application (on 10 April 1997) for a method of hedging risks in commodities trading. Such patent claims are often termed business method claims. [...] Bilski’s method claim was patent-ineligible because it did not “transform any article to a different state or thing.” [...]

It has been widely reported that the Bilski decision will call into question the validity of many already issued business method patents. [...]

Read the whole thing.

Via our Jason Ruspini

The specific points at issue are ownership or sponsorship of hedge funds and private equity funds, and proprietary trading — that is, placing bank capital at risk in the search of speculative profit rather than in response to customer needs. Those activities are actively engaged in by only a handful of American mega-commercial banks, perhaps four or five. Only 25 or 30 may be significant internationally.