This is a variant of the Prisoner's dilemma, where if everyone does what's in their immediate best interest then everyone suffers needlessly.
It would only be the Prisoner's dilemma, if it was always better not to get vaccinated, regardless of what others chose. But in the "vaccination game" you want to get vaccinated if nobody else is and you don't need to if everybody else is. So you want to do the opposite of the crowd. That makes it a Chicken game.
Anti-pokerites believe in something that is obviously untrue (the non-existence of two pair). I'm not saying you believe in this, but this turns out to be the only consistent stance that anti-pokerites fall into when they start talking about the after-round. They do this to avoid the unavoidable consequence that based on the fact that two pair exist, and didn't exist before the hand was dealt, the evidence is actually on the side of pokerites of various stripes that two pair exist again after the round.
Why can't the "self" be a transient pattern, like "two pair" in poker?
Older models, such as the DI-524, require authentication for all of the supported SOAP actions, but allow both the administrator and user accounts to execute any of these actions. This allows a malicious individual to use the often-ignored user account (default login of 'user' with a blank password) to perform administrative actions
If I read that right I should be fine as long as I secure the user account as well as the admin account. (And, of course, disable remote access.) Can anybody confirm/correct? Thanks.
We all agree on the necessity of compromise. We just can't agree on when it's necessary to compromise. -- Larry Wall