Now there's a story.

As the wife, what would you say? As the husband, what would you say?

Wife Response Options:

• I was trying to kill two birds with one stone. I needed a little more money in my pocket and more something-something in my “pocket.” If you had been better at providing both…
• Are you stupid? Isn't it obvious what I'm doing here? Because it's pretty obvious to me what you're doing here
• I thought maybe we could start a business so I was doing some market research
• You said I was getting fat. The stats say that sex helps you lose weight. I was doing this for us. I get a little more money, and you get something more interesting in bed. It's a win-win.
• I am working at the store in town. They sent me over here for third-party customer service training.

Husband Response Options:

• I was just reading the articles in the magazines in the waiting room
• My boss asked me to find a good place to entertain clients. I came in to see if the place is up to snuff. You work here so this place must be good.
• Someone told me the hottest brothel worker in town was here. So I thought I'd stop by and check her out just out of curiosity. But now that I know it's you, I'll just go home and wait. Why pay for something that I usually have for free?
• I didn't see the sign on the door. I thought this was a broth store! I was just going to pick up some soup for dinner. I swear!
• Oh, you're here already. I came in to see if this place offered classes or workshops because I was thinking of signing you up. You know, continuous improvement and stuff. But since you're already here, I guess I can just go home and wait for you to do your “homework.”

Objective

I would tell the lottery centre that it's a great travesty that they're planning to send me to jail. They should be heralding me and paying me a reward for discovering the flaw in their system. In fact, even if they didn't want to give me a reward, they should at least be paying me for my services.

Methodology

I was running an experiment in order to determine how rigorous the lottery centre was about their software. The test was to see exactly how long it would take for them to identify this little loop-hole.

Analysis

By conducting this experiment, the lottery centre is viewing it as though they lost $3.76 million USDs. But that is simply the cost of the experiment. In actuality I have saved them money by identifying the flaw that could potentially have cost them a lot more.

Here are the numbers.

The new software was implemented in 2005. For the sake of argument, let's say it was January 1st, 2005. I was arrested in January 2007. For the sake of argument, let's say it was January 31st, 2007. For 25 months, this flaw went undetected.

In 25 months, $3.76 million USDs was awarded to one person who runs 3 lottery stalls. So that's an average of $1.25 million USDs per stall per person.

If we assume 0.5% of China's population (1.3 million people) ran lottery stalls, one lottery stall per person, that would be 6500 lottery stalls.

If we assume that only these stall managers figured out the flaw after the first day of operation, and that everyone exploited the flaw to the same degree from day one (i.e. worst case scenario), that's gives:

6500 lottery stalls x $1.25 million USDs = $8.125 billion USDs.

This means that the lottery centre potentially could've have lost $8.13 billion UDSs as opposed to the $3.76 million of realized spend, which is negligible in comparison.

Options

Instead of jailing me for life, the lottery centre should consider paying me research fees, since all of my work was conducted in the name of research. The average per-capita monthly income in Beijing was reported to be $227 USDs. Hence, at the very least, the lottery centre should pay me:

$227 USDs per month x 25 months = $5675 USDs

However, since what I have is a unique skill, I don't think it is entirely fair to be paying me the “average” per-capita monthly income. The average salary for a Software Engineer in Beijing is approximately $23k USDs per year.

$23k USDs per year x 25 months/12 months per year = $47917 USDs

However, whenever staff make huge savings, they should get a bonus. I think a fair bonus would be 1% of the amount saved.

Potential Loss - Actual Loss = Amount saved
$8.125 billion USDs - $3.76 million USDs = $8.121 million USDs

1% of Amount saved = Bonus
1% x $8.121 million USDs = $81 million USDs

Conclusion

Hence, the fact that I am only walking away with $3.76 million USDs should not be viewed as a crime. I've practically provided my service free of charge since I'm actually entitled to $81 million USDs.

Even if was assume that only 1% of the stall managers would've discovered and exploited the flaw, I am entitled to:

65 lottery stalls x $1.25 million USDs = $81.25 million USDs
$81.25 million USDs - $3.76 million USDs = $77.49 million USDs
1% x $77.49 million USDs = $775k USDs

In summary, since I'm neither charging them salary ($5k - $47k) nor expecting any bonus ($775k to $81M) on top of the $3.76 million USDs of cost to them, they should be grateful.

I think by using this argument, I might manage to move from life in prison to death row.

Singapore Airlines decided that it was going to cater to those who are willing to pay top dollar and give them a complete suite on the plane. The Airbus A380 suite is completely private but not soundproof, so although they have created the perfect setting for you join the mile-high club, they're asking you not to (see Reuters article).

So why make double suites? I mean, they could've easily made these suites singles instead of doubles. And what's with the champagne and rose petals on the bed if they don't want people to frolic?

Or… why didn't they just pay the few extra bucks to make the walls soundproof? I mean to fly from Singapore to Sydney (which I believe is currently the only route upon which you can get this suite) at around $ 7500 CAD per person ($15k for the suite since its 2 people), what's an extra say $200 per flight to make the thing soundproof?

I'm not saying that the airline *must* cater to the carnal desires of their passengers, but rather to create an environment that would natural lead to such activities and then blatantly prohibiting it just seems borderline cruel. I mean, what are they going to do if a pair of passengers decides, “To hell with the "rules". Let's get it on!”

Are they going to send in a stewardess to say, “excuse me, folks. but you're not allowed to have sex in here.” Or maybe, “uhm… technically speaking, you're not allowed to have sex in here, but if you could keep it down and don't move around too much then the rest of us can just pretend that you're not doing anything.” Yeah. I see that going over really well.