
Classic RAND Papers - miobrien
https://www.rand.org/pubs/classics.html
======
indescions_2018
Hmmm. "Vietnam -- US Relations: 1945-1968" seems to be missing from this list
;)

I love Space Technology textbooks from the 1960s. Largely because the physics
and math of orbital mechanics can still be provided for good simulations.

Not sure if the same holds true for Game Theory apart from historical
interest.

For a better introduction see Networks, Crowds and Markets:

[https://www.cs.cornell.edu/home/kleinber/networks-
book/](https://www.cs.cornell.edu/home/kleinber/networks-book/)

~~~
jacobolus
Why wouldn’t game theory books from the 1960s be relevant? People still
recommend the 1944 Von Neumann & Morgenstern book all the time.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Games_and_Economic_B...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Games_and_Economic_Behavior)

~~~
Bromskloss
Ooo! I knew they had a theorem [0]; I'm excited to see they have a book too.

[0]<[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann%E2%80%93Morgenster...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann%E2%80%93Morgenstern_utility_theorem>)

------
yodon
I’m disappointed only in how few titles are listed here. The impact RAND had
on how we think about complex topics and the caliber of people they engaged
was simply amazing. So much of their work from their heyday in the 1950’s
seems either comically obvious or comically arrogant now, not because they
were clueless but because they so completely shaped how we think today that we
can’t imagine being the first to ask those questions that way.

[edit added] And yes, I do get there were a lot of projects RAND was involved
in that people could reliably and reasonably dislike or find highly
objectionable. For me, as important as that is, it doesn’t change the
historical significance and importance (and interest) of the work RAND did,
both good and bad.

~~~
anigbrowl
These are highlights but there's a ton more material on their website, just
curated by category. There aren't enough hours in the day to read it all.

------
_jal
The first game theory book I read was _Compleat Strategyst_ [1]. Less
interesting flipping through it now, but at least at the time it was a good
sales pitch, leading me to read a bunch more on the topic.

Seeing analytic techniques applied across competitive games was a revelatory
moment for high-school-me, in the mind-candy sense. In an odd way, learning to
try to wrap math around human activities shaped how I approached programming
for a long time. Not that I was trying to apply game theory to programming,
rather the general approach of thinking about the world as a sort of meta-
word-problem. Wish I had started trying to get rid of that habit earlier.

[1]
[https://www.rand.org/pubs/commercial_books/CB113-1.html](https://www.rand.org/pubs/commercial_books/CB113-1.html)

------
MichaelMoser123
It includes a book co-authored by Issac Asimov 'Planets for Man'
[https://www.rand.org/pubs/commercial_books/CB183-1.html](https://www.rand.org/pubs/commercial_books/CB183-1.html)

Is it really true that people in the sixties thought that interstellar travel
is 'just around the corner' as claimed in the blurb to the book? I mean RAND
sold this book as a product for serious people.

~~~
Avshalom
I don't know _how many_ people did but in the seventies there were a lot of
people who had seen the birth of the airplane to the landing on the moon. With
people believing in exponential progress of technology amd things like Orion
an NSWR I suspect _a lot_ of people rid assume interstellar travel was right
around the corner.

~~~
jfoutz
My great grandmother saw the Wright brothers fly as a teenager. The moon
landing was a big deal to her.

You’re absolutely right. I was little when I talked with her, but my parents
would surely say she would have completely accepted interstellar flights as
the next thing.

~~~
mkempe
Read the science/tech magazines from the 50s and 60s -- travel to the planets
was imminent and ineluctable. [1]

While in principle and reason enormous achievements and progress are within
reach of private enterprise, the 20th century was not dominated by reason and
freedom, to say the least.

[1]
[http://www.astronautix.com/v/vonbraunmarpedition-1969.html](http://www.astronautix.com/v/vonbraunmarpedition-1969.html)

------
chb
"A Million Random Digits with 100,000 Normal Deviates"
([https://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1418.html](https://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1418.html))

Had you described this to me in conversation, I'd have been incredulous.

~~~
rlongstaff
The review comments on Amazon tell you everything you need to know.

~~~
chb
Given the tone of so many of these reviews, I can't tell if the first reviewer
("Obi Wan") is being serious/delusional or if s/he's using the pagination of
the text to subtly(?) mock the other reviewers.
[https://www.amazon.com/Million-Random-Digits-Normal-
Deviates...](https://www.amazon.com/Million-Random-Digits-Normal-
Deviates/dp/0833030477)

------
lasercookies
[https://www.rand.org/pubs/reports/R3283/index1.html](https://www.rand.org/pubs/reports/R3283/index1.html)

Timeless classics. If only we were taught etiquette about electronic messaging
like this in 2018.

~~~
outsideoflife
This really is good. I might use some of this at our company. I love the stuff
about not replying while emotional!

------
ggm
Also, Baran was not the only voice in the packet networking sea.. Pouzin
should be recognized more. No disrespect either Baran, or RAND, but this has a
feel like the washington mall history of invention.. if it didn't happen
either in the US, or by a person who subsequently immigrated to the US, it
almost didn't happen.

------
ggm
I share Shapiro/Anderson on email with anyone I can convince to read it. I
remember it coming out well: I'd been slung off a UK JANET email list for
abusive behaviour just around this time!

