Good Lovin’
Honey, please
squeeze me tight (squeeze me tight)
Don't you want your baby to be all right? (be all right)
I said baby (baby), "Now it's for sure (it's for sure)
I got the fever, yeah, and you got the cure
Just as long
as the cure is not worse than the fever.
I have previously blogged that risk is the product of two things:
likelihood and consequences. The cost of
a cure should be less than the cost times the risk of getting the disease. Some
anecdotes if I may:
When I was a senior in High School, and I had gym class, I
used to store my notebooks and books for my next class in a common area outside
of the gym (because they would not fit in my gym locker.) One day my notebooks and books were not in
that common area after gym class. My reaction was, “so it goes”. In my next class, I got a call to go to the principal’s
office. He had taken my notebooks and
books to teach me a lesson that my possessions could be stolen. I replied that before the Principal did, no
one had ever stolen them. In fact, I now
realize that we both saw the likelihood the same, but he valued the consequences of losing my possession much
more than I did. The cost of learning my
lesson was that I did not use the common area any more for gym. An inconvenience,
but not a big cost.
Before the Tylenol murders, the likelihood of getting a
tainted product was no different than the likelihood after. But the consequences of getting a tainted product
was not acceptable. Nothing could be
done about the consequences, but the risk could be lowered if the likelihood
was lowered. Tamper Proof packing does
nothing to change the consequences, but it does decrease the likelihood, which
decreases the risk. The cost of shrink wrapping,
and tamper proof caps, is small compared to the consequences.
When the liquid bomber tried to blow up an airplane, I had
just traveled by plane the previous week. When I tried to fly home after, TSA confiscated
all of the liquids in my carry-on bag.
This confiscation and ban did nothing to change the consequences of a plane
explosion, but they reduced the likelihood of the plane explosion. The cost of confiscating, and banning, my (and
other passengers) liquids was considered less than the cost of a plane explosion.
Macros are small pieces of code within computer files. In most cases they are benign, especially if
you wrote them yourself. But if they are malicious
and you did not insert them, then they can have dire consequences. Microsoft's and my firm’s IT department's solution
is not to trust anything on a network because you don’t know where it came from,
even if you put it there. The consequences
may be dire but reducing the likelihood also means that the cure is that macros
can longer be inserted in network files and files with existing macros are no longer trusted.
IMHO, the cure, which is no more macros, is worse than the risk times
the cost of the risk.
Since people get risk confused with likelihood, consequently
the costs of the cure and the costs of the disease can also be expected to be confused. And that
may be why God allows evil in the world. The cost of eliminating evil may be greater
than the cost of the evil, at least that is what the Christian Gospels say.
The kingdom of heaven is like a man who
sowed good seed in his field. But while everyone was sleeping,
his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. When
the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared.
The owner’s servants came to him and
said, “Sir, didn’t you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds
come from?’’
“An enemy did this’’, he replied. The servants asked him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?’’
“No’’ he answered, “because while you are pulling the
weeds, you may uproot the wheat with them. Let both grow
together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First
collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat
and bring it into my barn”