Show Me

Wednesday, July 13, 2005

IDIOTIC INCENTIVES

More often than not, when we observe repeated instances of certain types of behavior, knowing the incentive structure associated with the behavior goes a long way toward explaining it. Not only do incentives explain behavior, but in many instances future behavior can be predicted on the basis of incentives. It's a relatively simple case of 'cause and effect' or 'stimulus and response'. What follow are several instances of allegedly 'obscure' and 'incomprehensible' behaviors that attain sudden clarity when seen in the light of incentives.

AN AVALANCHE OF VIRUSES TROJANS AND WORMS
Have you ever wondered why there is so much 'malware' on the web? Here's one possible explanation.

According to the WSJ 07-11-05 edition pg. B3, a German court convicted Sven Jaschan (aged 19), who authored and deployed the Sasser and Netsky worms/viruses, causing billions of dollars in damage, of computer sabotage. He received a 'suspended sentence' (i.e. 21 months probation) and 30 hours of community service.


Since both of Jaschan's 'malware' efforts targeted Microsoft, Microsoft also paid a bounty of $250,000 to two people who identified him as the culprit.

This certainly raises a good argument for why it's stupid to inflict armed robbery on a liquor store for a yield of a few hundred dollars. One could even get killed if all went wrong with such an attempt. The risk to reward ratio is certainly very minimal.

If you need cash, an alternate 'business plan' might look as follows:

    o Get a buddy to conspire with you.
    o Write and launch a really destructive virus targeting Microsoft.
    o Get your buddy to turn you in and collect the $250,000 bounty.
    o Get sentenced to 'probation' and 30 hours of community service.
    o Split the $250,000 bounty with your buddy later.

The risk to reward ratio for this kind of enterprise is much better than for robbing a liquor store.

Figure on 70 hours (this may be excessive) to write the 'malware', plus 30 hours of community service, as your time investment. Assuming a 50/50 split of the bounty, you get $125,000 for 100 hours of work. That's $1250 per hour, not quite what you'd get in the NBA or as a class action litigator, but not bad either.

Given this kind of 'incentive structure', we can all rest assured that further efforts to sabotage computers via 'malware' on the Internet have been 'nipped in the bud'.

Another Duuuhh moment.

THE LONDON BOMBING
The PUNDIT PUKES are still cogitating and pontificating and wondering why this atrocity took place and who is responsible. There may be several hypotheses and/or explanations.

As to 'who did it', the current thinking seems to be that it's 'Moroccans' with British Citizenship, and perhaps it was masterminded by a militant Syrian (Mustafa Nasir). The authenticity of the TERRORISTS' claims of association with al Qaeda and bin Laden may have as much substance as the 'bin Laden tape' that turned up here in the US just before the November 2004 election. This tape sounded like it was scripted by Michael Moore, and included verbatim lines right out of Fahrenheit 9/11. It's not unlikely that the Moroccan to al Qaeda connection is little more than the former using the latter as a 'flag of convenience'.


As a sidebar, our LEFTISTS and their mendicant MSM and PUNDIT PUKE lapdogs have been braying to the high heavens that all ISLAMIC RAD TERRORISM would have come to an end forever 'If only Bush had captured bin Laden in Afghanistan'. We suspect that ISLAMIC RAD TERRORISM would go on with or without bin Laden. He surely did not personally mastermind what happened in London.



    * WHAT IF BIN LADEN SURRENDERS? WOULD THAT BE ENOUGH?
    PART (1 of 1)


Does bin Laden even exist?

If these PUKES can tell us with METAPHYSICAL CERTITUDE that WMD's don't exist in Iraq because we can't seem to find them, then who's to say that the same is not true for bin Laden.


Capturing Saddam in Iraq liberated the Iraqis from his tyranny and created conditions more favorable to DEMOCRACY. However, Saddam's capture did not put a stop to the TERRORISM there.


These same LEFTISTS and their Media Mouthpieces also allege that we're tying up our resources in Iraq rather than fighting TERRORISM. Guess what? The TERRORISTS are also tying up their resources in Iraq. The TERRORISTS in Madrid and London seemed to be a different bunch than those in Iraq, so it's not just a case of the TERRORISTS from Iraq moving elsewhere. What's more it's easier to play OFFENSE than DEFENSE, and it's not really possible to play OFFENSE at home in the US.


Better there than here.

It would seem that while 7/7 was not as complete a surprise as 9/11, and many may have in general terms 'seen it coming', no one could predict the time and place. What's more, in spite of fairly tight security (this was a result of the barrage of IRA attacks in London for several decades, and also 9/11), no one was able to prevent the TERRORISTS from executing this atrocity. This may in large part have been due to the prevailing 'incentive structure'.

After 9/11, the EU and British PUNDIT-THINK was that only the US had been hit, and if the Brits and the rest of the EU 'made nice', they would be left alone. Never mind what happened in Madrid in March 2004, and that there were subsequent attempted acts of TERRORISM by ISLAMIC RADS in Spain even after Spain pulled out of the coalition. Never mind the assassination in Holland. Blair's reaction after the attack seemed to be that he was much less surprised than the PUNDITS.


As to 'why they did it', Europeans in general and Britain in particular have been very 'sensitive' and 'tolerant' toward the activities of ISLAMIC RADS. Perhaps they did not want to offend 'Mainstream Islam' (whatever that is... if in fact it even exists), due to the EU's tendency to perform extreme genuflections at the twin altars of 'Political Correctness' and 'Cultural Diversity'.


Then there's also the fact that only Islamic Immigrants seem to be willing to do low wage 'manual labor' for the EU's (is there a 'resonant chord' for something similar to this here in the US as well?). As a result, the Muslim population is as high as 10% in some EU countries (France for example). A largely 'culturally alien' unassimilated and 'clannish' group of this size must be treated with 'kid gloves'.

Another possible contributing factor might be that there's the ever present and just barely hidden below the surface phenomenon of Anti-Semitism in the EU, which results in an attitude that 'nothing is particularly out of whack' when Imams in Mosques preach stuff that sounds like the functional equivalent of what's in MEIN KAMPF.



    * ADDENDUM [I] TO WHY SOME COUNTRIES OPPOSE IRAQ WAR
    PART (1 of 1)


The EU's may even be feeling a twinge of guilt for not lifting a finger when Milosevic (BTW, Milosevic is being 'punished' by still being allowed to bloviate on his own behalf at the 'World Court', after his 'trial' has gone on for several years) along with Mladic and Karadzic (both still at large) systematically exterminated Bosnian and Kosovar Muslims (it's now been 10 years since Srebrenica).

In spite of almost every conceivable theory being floated by the MSM, including 'it's Bush's fault for invading Afghanistan and Iraq and introducing DEMOCRACY there.' (Duuuhhh... 9/11 preceded NOT followed these incursions) to 'it's due to Global Warming' (GW has been blamed for everything including ingrown toenails... Duuuhhhh), we have not yet seen or heard any of the MSM or PUNDIT PUKES mention this 'Guilt over Bosnia' thing as a hypothesis to help explain the EU's coddling of ISLAMIC RADS.

The bottom line seems to be that the ISLAMIC RADS could do what they did because the 'incentive structure' allowed them to.

Finally, several days after the carnage (not all the dead had even been counted), the G8 nations meeting in Scotland voted an additional $9 billionfor the Palestinians. If nothing else, the timing was somewhere between interesting and insensitive. This kind of incentive structure seems somehow reminiscent of the incentive structure prevalent in the war against 'malware' in the cyberworld.

Another Duuuhh moment.

LEGISLATING FROM THE BENCH
If every judge checked her/his ideology at the door on entering a courtroom, and adjudicated her/his cases fairly and equitably without trying to make social policy and supplant the Legislative and Executive branches, then the current rancor concerning judicial nominations would magically disappear. Lotsa luck!



    * THE NUCLEAR OPTION vs DEM FUBARING OF SENATE RULES
    PART (1 of 1)


It's highly doubtful that the Judiciary has ever exhibited such Olympian impartiality. However, things seem to be much worse today.

LITIGATION seems to be replacing LEGISLATION. We suspect that this represents another situation that's largely what it is, due to incentive structures.

Have you ever wondered if it might be possible to have a 'stealth' CONSERVATIVE SCOTUS nominee similar to 'stealth' LIBERAL nominees such as Douglas and Souter, and to a slightly lesser extent, Sandra Day O'Connor? The reason such a thing has not happened (i.e. a LIBERAL nominee evolving into a CONSERVATIVE once on the court) thus far, may be found in the 'incentive structure' of SCOTUS Judges.

According to Michael Barone in this week's issue of US News and World Report, once a SCOTUS Judge has been confirmed, she/he is there for as long as she/he chooses to stay. There is no longer any direct 'accountability' to THE PEOPLE. It would seem that because all Judges come from a fairly narrow and unrepresentative clique of LEGALISTAS (elite lawyers), they may feel more inclined to be attentive to the opinions of law school professors, editorial writers, 'Georgetown hostesses', and their own left leaning legal clerks, than to THE PEOPLE.

THE PEOPLE

who elected the President, who in turn appoints Judges, are quickly seen as a mere booster rocket to get Judges launched into SCOTUS orbit. Once the Judge is in orbit, this booster rocket can be allowed to fall away, as it is of no further use. The President also represents such a booster rocket.

This and the fact that there are very few mechanisms for removing totally unsuitable Judges (Impeachment and/or Judicial Recall??) contributes to the phenomenon of JUDICIAL AYATOLLAHS who seem to acknowledge no bounds to their power and influence.

It would probably require a Constitutional Amendment to alter this incentive structure in any meaningful way.


Another Duuuhh moment.

ENERGY
The Energy Bill has yet to pass. Once again, portions of it are dedicated to encouraging the development of 'alternate energy sources'. The problem with alternate energy sources (especially the 'free' ones like the SUN and WIND) is that their supply is intermittent, and when this type of energy is 'harvested', it can't be stored efficiently. Fossil fuels are 'batteries' that have already been pre-charged for us and can be used on demand.

Until we get better batteries, there are limitations to the use of the SUN and the WIND. The search should therefore be FIRST for better batteries than what we now have. Solar Collectors and Windmills are relatively easy to make. Storing their output efficiently is still out of reach to the point that the 'real' cost for an equivalent amount of energy obtained this way still exceeds the cost of oil... even if oil starts to cost $70 to $90 per barrel.

The incentives for an alternate fuel still don't seem to require that it can be stored and used on demand like fossil fuels, and that it is cost competitive with fossil fuels. The result of such incentives will be more boondoggles, such as those foisted on us in the Jimmy Carter era, while no one will be working on making a better battery, which is the KEY to making all the other stuff practical.


Yet another Duuuhhh moment.

THE PEOPLE SHALL JUDGE


posted by showme | 8:35 AM | 0 comments